Yes, it’s true that New York Times editor Jill Abramson was recently “fired” and replaced.    However, not because she’s a woman who asked for a pay raise – but rather because she has done the most sacrilegious offense to the towers of progdom, she exposed the falsehood behind the White House claims of transparency.

It’s an easy mistake to make, because much of the recent leftist push has been structured around the so called other sides’ “war on women”, and women’s issues  in general (See #BringBackOurGirls et al and also this).

Yes, indeed the intentional strategy to try and retain power for Democrats and the White house has been to slide “racism” -as a leveraging tool- over a bit, and to make room for “sexism” leverage to take a greater role.    [Democrats always use victimization as substantiation for their social justice campaign and agenda(s).]  With Hillary running in 2016 the shift to sexism serves multiple goals. 

Against the recently evolving sexist landscape many conservative teams are looking at the Abramson firing as a point to say “ha, hypocrites”.    We’re seeing this aspect in just about all of the discussions of the New York Times firing; and, indeed, it does point to a rather hypocritical snark considering the argument of her being fired by liberals for asking for equity in pay, while Democrats are simultaneously proclaiming advocacy for women’s pay rates.

However, her asking for a pay scale commensurate with the pay of the male editor she replaced is not substantive enough for the liberal left decision makers to fire her on that point.

Not even close.

As soon as Jill Abramson spoke about the White House lack of transparency, she sealed her fate.    This is what her resignation interview looks like as it was shared with al Jazeera TV:

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations.

That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.    [NYT Editor Jill Abramson to al Jezeera, Jan 21 2014]  

Abramson strolled off the liberal plantation by allowing the truth of President Obama’s White House manipulations to be exposed.    The third rail.  The unforgivable.

She immediately became a risk.

When you become a risk to a liberal world view, you immediately become a target.

From the perspective of mandated liberal synergy this egregious proclamation was just too much to allow.    She had to be culled from the herd, and as in all manner of subversive Fabian methodology, she had to be culled quietly – perhaps under a different auspices.

So, the NYT began the replacement outreach and quietly walled her off from being able to further damage the progressive goals and then released her from her role as soon as a plausible opportunity arose.