Let me be very clear about my biases here. I HATE the New York Post. My disdain for it goes back to the Summer of Sam in 1977, when the paper indicated, in screaming red letters that the killer had been caught. More egregious, though, was when some photographer slipped into the NYC morgue in December 1980 and took a picture of the deceased John Lennon, a photo that the Post, in its infinite taste, published on the front cover.
So when NewsCorp, a/k/a Rupert Murdoch, bought it a few years back, it only solidified my disdain for the rag. Though to be fair, its sports coverage is decent. Understand that I don't actually READ the paper; those headlines are generally enough. And on those rare occasions when I HAVE read it - usually an abandoned copy on a bus - my suspicions about the newspaper's character, or lack thereof, are confirmed.
I'm not a great fan of Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was wrong on the Iraq war, but my disdain actually predates that. I didn't vote for her in 2000 or in 2006. I think part of it is that she's one in a line of carpetbaggers who came into New York State merely as a matter of convenience, so that they could run for the U.S. Senate. Remarkably, the last three were actually elected: Robert Kennedy in 1964, James Buckley (brother of William F., who had denounced RFK six years earlier for the same reason), and HRC in 2000.
Still, the vitriol that she engenders is astonishing to me. They hate her because she's too tough. They hate her for using Rodham in her name. They hate her because she didn't leave Bill over Monicagate. They hate her for reasons I've heard explained and STILL don't understand. It almost seems that she has personally insulted them, the way many right-wing magazines and books have keyed on her. I mean, she's not my pick for President, but yeesh!
And among her nastiest, and most persistent, critics is the slimeball tabloid New York Post, which seems practically obsessed with her, based on these newspaper covers from successive days (January 3-8, 2007). Other New York State papers cover the Presidential campaigns; the Post covers it largely in relationship with the fortunes (or misfortunes, so they hope) of "Hill" (rhymes with Bill). I read a story some months ago about her in the Post. The details now escape me, but it was clearly opinion, and negative opinion at that, posing as a "news" story.
So, when she cries, or almost does, one can practically hear the Post editors smacking their lips. "Hill cracked! We got to her! She's going down!" But a funny thing happened: Hillary won in New Hampshire. And according to this piece, and others, it was BECAUSE she cried, or almost did. She allowed herself to be "real" and the voters, especially the women voters, responded.
And, peculiarly, I was glad she won in New Hampshire. Anyone denying that there is this sexist double standard isn't looking very hard. The man can cry and be sensitive yet manly and Presidential, but the woman who cries is probably "in a tizzy" and can't be trusted with heading the government. This is the balancing act Hillary Clinton has been trying to maintain for a long time, but letting her emotions show seems to have helped her, at least for one day.
X is for X-rays, WWI and Marie Curie
3 hours ago