DC Trawler

WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart: Valerie Jarrett Is A Woman And Therefore Above Criticism

Font Size:

No, seriously. He wrote that down, and The Washington Post published it. It’s as if last week’s election never happened. It’s as if the American people didn’t thoroughly repudiate the cynical “Republican War on Women” ploy. It’s as if Capehart lives in a protective bubble of delusion.

Still don’t believe me? Here:


A taste of Capehart’s wisdom:

In the Obama administration, no one is more envied or hated because of her access and willingness to use the power that goes with it than Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Obama…

A particularly nasty piece in Politico magazine calls on Obama to “Fire Valerie Jarrett.” The writer, Carol Felsenthal, declares, “Her undefined role combined with what by all accounts has been almost unlimited proximity to the Obamas has proved a bad mix.” Noam Scheiber of the New Republic also took a critical eye to Jarrett’s performance in a piece that hit the Web last night. His is a fairer look at her tenure because it recognizes that “Jarrett’s role is far more textured” than the popular narrative against her…

The one difference between Jarrett and others who have wielded the same kind of power in the West Wing is that she is a woman. Were she a man, her job would not be subject to endless “What does he really do?” questions. Were she a man, she wouldn’t be called “the night stalker” for walking with her longtime friend back to the private residence. Were she a man, her willingness to use her elbows to do what she thinks is right for the president would be applauded.

Were she a man — were she, say, Valentino Jarrett — Capehart would need to come up with some other aspect of Valentino’s identity to preclude criticism. His Iranian descent, perhaps. Or maybe his sexual orientation. Something, anything to impugn his detractors. “Don’t pay any attention to those meanies, you guys. They’re sexist/racist/homophobic/other!”

And how is “night stalker” sexist? Were Richard Ramirez and Darren McGavin actually gals? Women can’t be creepy?

Not to mention that Capehart isn’t exactly consistent about treating women in politics like Fabergé eggs:


Oh yeah, remember that? As Matt Lewis wrote back in July 2011:

“Folks want to be able to envision someone sitting in the Oval Office,” writes The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart of Sarah Palin’s Newsweek cover. “They don’t necessarily want to envision [a president] in the pages of Esquire magazine’s ‘Sexiest Woman Alive 2011′ or Maxim…”

He goes on to add that Palin “can’t possibly be taken seriously as a presidential contender dressed like that, especially since this is the second time she has given Newsweek a less-than-presidential pose.”

To borrow Capehart’s own construction: Were Sarah Palin a man… Capehart would say exactly the same thing! Because he’s not a sexist. How could he be a sexist? He’s one of the good guys.

If you have a problem with Capehart’s not-at-all-ridiculous opinion, he’s got two words for you:





He’s not silly. You are.




You’re welcome, Jonathan.

Once again: Liberals want conservatives to shut up, and conservatives want liberals to keep talking.

Tags : treacher
Jim Treacher