Mary Katharine wrote about this CNBC interview on Monday, pointing out the moment where Senator Rand Paul “shushes” Kelly Evans in a testy exchange over vaccinations. The shush wasn’t the biggest beef MK had with the segment — she was more annoyed with Paul’s testiness and answers — but it’s the shush that’s getting the most attention:

Granted, it’s a slow news week (month?), but the New York Times manages to offer its some say it’s sexist take on Shush-gate, practically licking its war-on-women chops:

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky appeared to stumble on Monday night when he stepped into a controversy over vaccine mandates, but his bigger problem may be a backlash from women.

An interview with Kelly Evans of CNBC became testy when Mr. Paul grew frustrated that the line of questioning was more about vaccines than about taxes, and shushed his interviewer.

Some on social media took Mr. Paul’s tone as a sign of sexism, suggesting that he could face an uphill fight in appealing to female voters if he decides to run for president.

What would we do without “some on social media” to guide our thinking? It’s not just the New York Times either, but also Time Magazine, the Washington Post, and even NewsMax, which notes that “many cry sexism.” On Fox News Channel’s Outnumbered, the panel mostly agrees, although Kennedy explicitly argues that the shush was non-sexist:

Dr. Ablow argues that Paul meant the shush in “good humor,” which clearly wasn’t the case, but was it sexist? Harris Faulkner actually gets closer to the truth in calling it “disrespect,” saying that gender doesn’t matter. Paul’s attack on Evans at the end of the interview shows that he was clearly irritated by the interview — rightly or not — and he wanted to let her know it. For some, that may be a feature rather than a bug, especially for those who are outraged over media bias and want Republicans to push back on air against it, although in this case it was for a cause (vaccination skepticism) that most in the GOP don’t want to fight in the first place. The challenge at the end of the interview might have been a good example of that kind of scolding, but the shush and the instruction to calm down … not so much.

Kennedy makes a good point near the end when she observes that the kerfuffle actually obscured Paul’s intent on doing the interview at all, which was to clarify his comments and correct other reporting. His testiness got in the way of that objective, Kennedy argues, and especially the condescending shush. Paul has long had a contentious relationship with the media, and this may show that having just one election under the belt isn’t enough to produce a smooth candidate for a national campaign. Another indication may have taken place last week, when Paul attended what should have been a friendly event staged by the Koch brothers. Instead, Politico reported yesterday, Paul’s approach left the attendees remarkably unimpressed:

Some attendees commented that Paul’s appearance was “cavalier,” said Frayda Levin, a Paul supporter and major donor who attended the conference at the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage, California. It was organized by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the non-profit hub that oversees the Koch network. “This is an older crowd and much more establishment crowd. They are used to a Romney. They are used to a Jeb Bush,” Levin said.

“Jeans might work for a younger audience,” said another attendee, “but these are old bulls who put on a tie every day to go to the office.”

The sartorial criticisms hint at a potentially more serious challenge for Paul — securing the backing of enough big money donors to be competitive in a crowded Republican primary that could include prolific fundraisers such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.

During a Sunday afternoon speech at the Koch forum , Paul drew skepticism among some donors by touting tax breaks as a means of spurring economic growth in blighted inner cities. That stance is anathema to the brand of small-government conservatism espoused by the industrialist brothers and many of their network’s donors, who object to marketplace interference. Even Levin admitted she was “a bit surprised. But he’s just exploring ideas right now. People didn’t quite understand where he was coming from.”

Donors were further put off by Paul’s performance later that evening in a forum for prospective GOP presidential candidates that also featured Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. At times slouching in a cushy arm chair, Paul, with his legs crossed, gave rambling answers that contrasted sharply with other participants.

Interestingly, the straw poll at the end of this libertarian-leaning conference put Paul “dead last.” Rubio and Scott Walker topped the list, despite not exactly fitting the profile of the event and its hosts. The takeaway seems to be that Paul isn’t quite ready for a first-tier national campaign, and the “shush” might just be further evidence of it.