David Brooks Writes Column Titled 'Why Is Clinton Disliked?' That Does Not Contain the Word 'Woman'

[sarae]

Jia Tolentino wrote a hilariously scathing response to David Brooks' article. People are so reluctant to call sexism out; I understand why (because people jump on you when you point it out), but we'll never get anywhere without acknowledging it's existence.

For the first time, we have two candidates with historically high unfavorable ratings. One of them is a complete raging buffoonish asshole who has managed to insult almost everyone alive, while the other is an exceedingly qualified traditional candidate that fact-checking shows to be more honest than traditional politicians. For David Brooks to not even raise the suggestion that gender may be the distinguishing factor is unbelievably obtuse.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/david-brooks-writes-column-titled-why-is-clinton-dislik-1778400065

(and here's the David Brooks article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html?_r=0)

From the article:

Yeah, if it’s not her tireless work ethic or long record of public service or anything about her political record that David Brooks finds necessary to bring up here, but rather, it’s something powerfully subjective about this whole situation—WHAT COULD THAT THING BE?

another excerpt:

Phenomenally, the conclusion David Brooks draws even from this ninth-grade-level critical assessment is not that Clinton’s professional demeanor is off-putting to people because we have been conditioned for centuries to expect warm and familial subservience from women. (As this column itself also does not contain the words “sexism” or “sexist” and points out that Clinton’s personal appeal points have been limited to “a few grandma references,” we would, I guess, not expect David Brooks to be able to recognize his own mistakes.) Rather he concludes that Clinton’s professional demeanor is off-putting to a wide swath of Americans because of the era of social media, which is personalist (OK, MAN) and vulnerable.

That is literally the best idea he’s got.

[mcar]

1. Pierce wiped the floor with Brooks too

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45184/david-brooks-hillary-clinton-fun/

Hey, you ask, what's the best way to ruin a good morning?

Reading David Brooks in The New York Times on the subject of what, if anything, Hillary Rodham Clinton does for "fun." Using David Brooks to judge "fun" is like asking the pope to MC the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, except with less logic. Nonetheless, go there we must.

[sarae]

6. hah!

Thanks, off to read that one now...

[charlyvi]

2. David Brock is one of those responsible for it.

Brock was a member of the Arkansas Project, created to destroy Bill Clinton. He has since repented and is now working for Hillary; she is an incredibly forgiving individual.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/5/24/111749/271

According to R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor-in-chief of the [American] Spectator, the idea for the Arkansas Project was hatched on a fishing trip on the Chesapeake Bay in the fall of 1993. The “Arkansas Project” name that later became famous was conceived as a joke; the actual name used within the Spectator and the Scaife foundation was the “Editorial Improvement Project.”

Project reporter/investigators were hired, including David Brock, who later (after reversing his political stance) described himself as a Republican “hitman”, and Rex Armistead, a former police officer who was reportedly paid $350,000 for his efforts. Also assisting the project was Parker Dozhier, a bait shop owner who was reportedly obsessed with bringing down Bill Clinton. They were tasked with investigating the Clintons and uncovering stories tying the Clintons to murders and drug smuggling as well as adultery.

According to Brock, Armistead and Brock met at an airport hotel in Miami, Florida, in late 1993. There, Armistead laid out an elaborate “Vince Foster murder scenario”, a scenario that Brock later claimed was implausible.” Regardless, by the end of 1993, Brock was writing stories for the Spectator that made him “a lead figure in the drive to” expose Clinton.

David Brock isn’t the most reliable reporter of fact, but the basics are not now in dispute. We may never know if future Solicitor General Ted Olsen told “Brock that the American Spectator should publish speculation about Vince Foster’s death, even though he himself believed that speculation was false, because doing so would turn up the heat on the administration until another scandal came along.” But we know that the Spectator and many other shadowy right-wing outlets did exactly that.

Whatever you think of him, the fact remains that the Vince Foster murder conspiracy story was concocted by conscienceless and cruel opponents of the Clintons, almost none of whom have apologized precisely because they have no conscience.

[sarae]

4. I thought it was Brock at first, too, but this is David Brooks.

But you make very good points, regardless! Thanks. The Vince Foster conspiracy story is so absolutely ridiculous, but I'm not surprised that Lyin' Donald is spreading it around.

[JSup]

9. Some of my best friends...

...used to be my enemies; it's weird how life happens.

[Her Sister]

3. More interesting question is why does the question exist? ~ Who came up with the question!

Because the question is BOGUS!

If anyone asked me if I liked or trusted HRC I'd say: "F*ck your question! ~ Don't like or Trust YOU!"

[sarae]

5. +1

I agree! I'm so sick of the question.

[charlyvi]

7. Oops! Thanks

I lost my glasses. I saw the title of your post and read "Brock" and got upset because of the hypocrisy.......only there wasn't any because it was Brooks. Sorry!


On edit: OK, goofed again. This is in response to your post which was is response to mine. I think I'll go lie down.

[sarae]

8. No worries! I did the same thing when I first saw it. :)

[beachbumbob]

10. Foxnews propaganda and tea party zealots...But brooks won't

Go there...

[LAS14]

11. Fascinating. But I think...

... that Brooks' final paragraphs are wrong. He's suggesting that we think about having non-work lives even if we have fulfilling vocations. Well, I'd agree maybe for PR reasons, but not for personal reasons.

Then, maybe she's just private? How much do we know about David Brooks' or Mark Shields' or Judy Woodruff's personal lives?

[spooky3]

12. And how much do we care? Journalists and politicians are

Entitled to have personal lives with lots or hobbies or few hobbies as they please.

[riversedge]

13. Vox-- David Brooks has a weird theory about why Hillary Clinton isn't more popular

I really think Brooks has too much time on his hands. He needs a hobby--maybe like mountain climbing!!

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11759738/hillary-clinton-hobbies

David Brooks has a weird theory about why Hillary Clinton isn't more popular

Updated by Matthew Yglesias on May 24, 2016, 12:00 p.m. ET @mattyglesias [e-mail]
Tweet Share (261) +

David Brooks has a column detailing the "paradox" that Hillary Clinton, who was popular as secretary of state, has become less popular over time.

This is pretty clearly because as secretary of state she played as a kind of neutral representative of the United States on the world stage, whereas as a candidate for president she's disliked by Republicans to her right and Bernie Bros democratic socialists to her left.

But Brooks has another theory:

I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what Obama does for fun — golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.

This made me curious what Clinton's hobbies are, so I went to a website called Google and searched for "Hillary Clinton hobbies." I found that she enjoys speed walking, gardening, crossword puzzles, and Scrabble, which seem like pretty normal hobbies for her demographic, much as playing golf and watching basketball on TV are pretty normal hobbies for someone like Barack Obama................