Sarah Palin is a card carrying feminist, herself.
I don’t see any ‘hate’ here.
Just a well reasoned argument.
But of course Palin’s defenders can’t be reasoned with.
Palin critics on the right—George Will, Peggy Noonan, David FrumSteaming pile of horse manure.
If you read her biography on Wikipedia, she wanders from campus to campus conducting "gender studies" seminars.
So much for offering "reasoned arguments"...
I agree to some extent. Although I am a Palin defender, some Freepers really seem intransigent. However, it is more interesting that her critics (and I am not referring to the PDS crowd) seem equally intransigent.
Well-educated and relatively conservative women (such as my wife) seem to have a grudge against Sarah, as if she did not work as hard as they did to gain acclaim. The State Run Media did a good job of playing up this trope. Sarah needs to win back this demographic if she wants to be POTUS.
I had better put on my asbestos suit. The flames will be coming fast and furious for expressing any doubts about Saint Sarah.
Actually, it’s the Palin detractors who can’t be reasoned with. They see themselves as “elite” and “above the rest of us mere mortals.”
Yet Douthat admits that Palin's "missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues" tarnished her role as a spunky common woman challenging the elites. But in that case, how much of the harsh treatment was due to prejudice and how much to Palin's own failings?The idea that Bill Clinton has endured political nastiness would amuse the shade of Richard Nixon, who wouldn't have lasted even two years in office under the clouds which Clinton's maladministration deserved. It doesn't actually matter "Who hired Craig Livingstone," the fact that Clinton announced that Livingstone "was fired" - note the passive voice, with no acceptance of any responsibility even for hiring someone who hired Livingstone - would have destroyed Nixon. If indeed Nixon had survived the mere disclosure that Filegate - hundreds of counts of a felony - had happened in the very White House itself on Nixon's watch.Yes, Palin has been the target of extremely vicious attacks (though the notion that no other politician has endured comparable nastiness would amuse Bill and Hillary Clinton).And that says nothing about Cattlegate, or Billing Record "gate" or Travelgate or . . .
There were so many legitimately major scandals in that maladministration that you can never call to mind the half of them at any given time. And we didn't even know about Gorelick's "wall" at the time.
Her left-wing feminist foes have been especially rabid, mocking her in startlingly misogynistic language—"Republican blow-up doll" was one of the milder epithets—and denouncing "her pretense that she is a woman." The bizarre theory that Palin's youngest child, Trig, is really her grandson is still afloat in the gutters of the Internet.She would have taken some heat, no question - but not from any major news organization. And in the context of the legion of substantive misdeeds of the Clinton WH, it would scarcely have merited notice.(Of course, if Chelsea Clinton had been the expecting unwed mom, not one unkind word would have crossed the lips of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.) Nor was she particularly eager to shield Bristol Palin from the spotlight.And then there's the matter of Palin's fitness for the second-highest office in the land.
Given that the Democratic VP nominee was Joe Biden, and that Palin's limited executive experience exceeded that of all three of the other major-party candidates for national office combined, that argument is underwhelming.
I don't see any 'hate' here.
Just a well reasoned argument.
But of course Palin's defenders can't be reasoned with.
I certainly don't hate her, but: the immediate problem seems to be that if you don't support her uncritically, you're a terrible person.
Her supporter's long term problem is that no politician is above criticism or even ridicule, and those who seem too fragile will be viewed as being unable to hack it.
Sarah Palin lashes out at people like David Letterman, validating him and giving him publicity while at the same time making her look like she cannot control herself.
Some people have asked, seemingly rhetorically, if Sarah Palin should "just stay quiet" when comedians and pundits make jokes. The answer is "yes". This isn't the 8th grade, and every insult doesn't have to have a response.
The President of the United States has to ignore comedians and idiotic pundits. How many times did you see Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 or Bush 2 complain repeatedly about what the comedians on Saturday Night Live or late night television said the night before? How many challenged comedians for their tasteless jokes?
The presidency requires incredibly thick skin, and an ability to focus on things other than what some guy on late night TV says.
The fact is, the Russians, Venezuelans, North Korean and Chinese of the world aren't know for their kindness.
The Democrats in Congress and in office as Governors aren't known for their sweet dispositions.
Even our allies aren't in it for us - they're in it for themselves, and an inability to bring our "A game" to the table can mean that we don't get what we need.
So, if Palin feels the need to rise to every bit of bait thrown her way, and if her supporters feel the need to come charging to her defense, talking about the Hell she's been put through, what does it say to voters?
It says that she's weak, that she needs defending, that she can't make it on her own. A person like that doesn't have a chance in the world.
Based on what I know of her policy views, I'll absolutely vote for Sarah Palin if she gets the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath that that will ever happen.
Flame away.