Yeah, not so much:
The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players. The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.
I can’t wait until they try to dress him in a leather motorcycle jacket and put him on a Harley. It will be Dukakis-in-a-tank times ten. Love him or loathe him, George W. Bush was a guy’s guy. I despised the man and his disastrous presidency, but I can’t honestly say that I’d object to him coming over to watch the game with the guys. Whereas you know Obama would prefer be in the kitchen drinking white zinfandel and exchanging arugula recipes with the women.
This piece tells you more about the alienation of the New York Times from all things masculine than it does about the Obama administration. It reminds me of the time that the Chilliette’s girlfriends from San Francisco were concerned that her Scandinavian computer programmer fiance was “too macho” If Obama was a real guy’s guy, he’d respond by inviting some of the women who have been critical of him to the next basketball game, then blowing them off the court. And then, in a month or two, hosting a game of tackle football in the snow.