Awesome. I totally missed/ignored that big comment thread yesterday. I love when it can be summed up in one sentence. Do more of this Paul. Thanks.

Even a broken clock...

@4: I always have to laugh about posts like this, considering how much of The Stranger's online ad revenue is based upon demeaning and objectifying women. But hey, they "need" it to stay online, so it is perfectly ok, right?

Before the tide of "it is just Google ads, and The Stranger does not choose the ads," keep in mind that they chose to use Google ads, knowing that those types of ads are on there. No one is forcing them to use Google ads.

The bald hypocrisy is pretty astounding, as is the silence of the staff when this question gets brought up.

The only opinion on this incident that truly matters belongs to Michelle Obama, who also happens to be, by far, the best looking FLOTUS we've ever had. It's true, c'mon.

@4-- That was my point yesterday. The juxtaposition of that post and a bunch of sexist display ads along the right (not the Google-generated ones, mind you) is pretty hard to justify.

You know what they say a broken block is right twice, so clam down Paul.

You know what they say a broken clock is right twice, so clam down Paul.

#6....SEXIST!!!

jesus christ, it must be really tiring for the stranger's "writers" to be in a constant state of outrage.

Obama didn't say "the prettiest little lady in California" or anything, he light-heartedly said the "she also happens to be the best looking attorney general" after extolling his friend's intelligence and accomplishments.

Would there be this brouhaha if Obama had joshed that NM Senator Martin Heinrich is "the best looking Democrat in the Senate"?

Seriously, the negative response to him comments seems misplaced: like a knee-jerk Liberal PC reaction to dust off an old copy of a Naomi Wolf's book. Not really applicable given this situation and these two individuals. Personally, it makes Obama seem more human and less Vulcan to me.

Every now and again, liberals live up to the conservative parody of them as finger-wagging, censorious Aunt Polly types. This is one of those occasions.

It's not a big deal, Paul. Have a fucking beer.

Fox News agrees with you.

Who cares? Most liberals would agree that folks on the far left can be overly uptight, moralistic, and sensitive.

@8: The only lesson I can take away from it, since the staff remains silent, is that the staff of The Stranger feels that sexism is wrong, unless you are a liberal paper profiting off of sexism.

So it's on the record, I am a liberal who agrees that folks on the far left are generally overly uptight, moralistic, and sensitive. Their kingdom to be outraged, just outraged, at something. At some point its less about politics or justice, and more about an inability to feel content unless there's someone or something to seethe about. It's what makes the organized social justice movement so ineffective... so many people in it are so damned angry all the time.

I really hate watching people defend casual sexism. Sure, it's not as big of a deal as outright misogyny or violence against women, and he "meant it as a compliment" (as most bosses and other people in authority who accidentally or purposefully say something like this always say), but it's still sexist. And it's coming from the president of the United States, whose words have an outsized symbolic importance. He should know better, and people should know better than to defend him.

And I can think all of this and still enjoy relaxing, having a beer, and telling or enjoying off-color jokes with my friends.

There's nothing that confirms me in my views more than seeing people get way more offended by the complaints of sexism than by the sexism itself. Why is sexist outrage not a case of oversensitivity, but rather mild feminist complaining about casual sexism is? Examine your privilege, people.

On the waves of self pity wash over me like waves of goodbye from a lover who never said goodbye.

Nothing like arguing by Guilt By Association, huh, Paul?

"You know who else was a vegetarian? HITLER! That's who!"

#19 - "examine your privilege, people"

Go fuck yourself, Cascadian.

Paul -

1) One can compliment the appearance of another without it being sexist.
2) Point taken that Fox News' nothing to see here approach to discriminatory behavior is obtuse. No one should be afraid of agreeing with anyone, if the reasoning is sound.

If you take away the filter of never-being-able-to-compliment-a-person-albeit-a-woman-in-power-based-on-physicality-because-of-past-sexism-related-to-physical-objectification-women, I think you would find that your post is just as reactionary...as Fox News interminably never fails to be.

Do you think 9/11 was committed by Al Qaeda, and was not an inside job? Fox News agrees with you.

Do you think WW2 was a just war? Fox News agrees with you.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln was a good president? Fox News agrees with you.

Do you think North Korea has a terrible government? Fox News agrees with you.

I could go on and on, but hopefully Paul understands how juvenile and intellectually empty this kind of sentiment is.

Ironically, it's the same level of reasoning one finds at...well, you know where.