,
15 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Let's put this to a test, shall we?
OK Google, what has the Washington Post had to say about whether male candidates are likable?
Here's a 2016 headline. "Trump has a likability epidemic" means he's even more unlikable than Mrs. Clinton. washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w… 
This one speaks for itself. washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/…
This one cites Rubio's likability as an argument in his favor against Cruz and Trump. washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-tu…
Here are Post headlines from 2012 on whether Mitt Romney was likable.
In 2004, "being likable wasn't enough" for John Edwards. washingtonpost.com/archive/politi…
Here's one from 1988, for crying out loud. washingtonpost.com/archive/politi…
Now let's look at Linksey and Weigel's sources. We have a humor site.
We have a former Clinton staffer who asserts that no one would ever say the Democrats shouldn't nominate another white man--another easily disprovable claim (though I'll leave that work to others).
Then we have Ed Rendell, presented as a champion of women, who describes his favorite female politician as "the girl next door" and an appealing prospective daughter-in-law.
This goes unremarked IN AN ARTICLE COMPLAINING ABOUT "GENDERED" COMMENTS ON FEMALE CANDIDATES!
So yeah, great job, Washington Post.
End of rant.
