Let’s test your powers of observation. The image on this page is a recently snapped photo of all the president’s men, emphasis on men. A number of media outlets commented on the male-centric look of this group. None, however, hit home more forcefully than the The New York Times, whose report prompted former deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter to state on “Morning Joe” that “that picture is not reflective of what actually happens.”
You’d think that would be enough to silence the critics, but President Obama – a man for whom image is everything – was not willing to take chances. Click here for the revised photo, released today. Notice anything different? Of course, there are broads … er – women in the picture. (Also, the fruit in the bowl at the center is a little different, but now we’re just splitting hairs.)
Why would it be tragic for the president to surround himself predominantly with male advisers if they were the best “people” for the job? You’d have to ask him or some other liberal for an explanation. This column can’t imagine a plausible excuse.
In the meantime, Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday of the ongoing House inquiry into the Benghazi raid on 9/11 that some in the media had “heavily politicized” the story. That is the purest balderdash. Four Americans were killed, no answers have been forthcoming about who knew what leading up to and following the attacks, and the lone suspect in custody – a Tunisian – was set free yesterday. The press has every right and every reason to pursue this story and to demand answers from the White House and others in the Obama administration.
The irony, though, is for a representative of this president, who can scarcely get through a day without politicizing something, to accuse the press of that particular dereliction.
Related Articles
- Breaking: Top Obama appointee cut reference to Al Qaeda in Benghazi memo (Photos)
-
The left’s not-so-faux war on women
- Obama unable to resist politicizing Trayvon Martin for Latino audience
- White House denies stripping mention of Al Qaeda from CIA talking points
- Obama now has a Susan Rice problem in addition to his Benghazi problem
- Obama to nominate Susan ‘spontaneous mob reaction’ Rice for Secretary of State
- Hillary Clinton’s ‘taking responsibility’ for Libya changes nothing
- Joe Biden tells parents of SEAL killed in Benghazi their son had ‘balls’ (Photos)
- Father of fallen Marine outraged over condolence ‘form letter’ from president
- Breaking: WH had info on ID of Benghazi attackers within 2 hours
- Biden Libya debate claim throws Hillary Clinton under the bus (Video)
- Embassy killings and protests prompt MSM, Dems to attack Mitt Romney (Video)
- Debate 2 opens Pandora’s box on Benghazi consulate attack
“Revised” meaning completely different picture?
I was wondering what the word meant in context.
Anyway, I want to complain about the revised photograph where the shameful women appear without even a head-covering in a room full of men, and repeat the obvious fact that your decadent civilization will be ground under the feet of goats who will then be required to wash their feet before being killed for touching you. Yes, that’s logical where I come from. Our logic has not been corrupted by Zionists.
What I was wondering about is what happened to the black dude in the original picture? Was he also there to fill a quota and told to go back to his menial filing job to make room for more women?
I didn’t notice. And now that I think about it, about the possibility that he was chosen to stand there because he’s black — you know, that’s messed up.
Must be Obama’s “white half” acting up or something.