- Scott Miller
Wow. The lib chic claws are out today… it seems as though liberal woman pundits – raving about the historic nature of Hillary’s run - are really not interested in supporting a strong woman after all. Forget all that talk about woman’s suffrage. Forget all that talk about equality. Forget all that talk about the glass ceiling… all that turns out to be BS (Barbara Streisand). They really could care less about a strong woman… they are simply interested in supporting a liberal.
Exhibit 1… a hack piece from Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post today:
Did anybody watching McCain introduce Palin on Friday doubt that he would have preferred to be standing there with Joe Lieberman? When he and Palin hugged on stage, it had the air of the new daughter-in-law joining the family.
Clinton’s candidacy was attractive to me because it was not premised on gender. “I am very proud to be making history running as a woman for president of the United States, but I’m not running because I am a woman,” she said. “I’m running because I think I am the most qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running in January 2009.”
Palin’s selection, though, feels like a disappointing retreat to the identity politics of 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro was picked for the Democratic ticket solely because Walter Mondale wanted a woman. On Friday, Ferraro was on Fox News, talking about how “people are looking for a historic campaign,” and suggesting that the choice of Palin “might do it.”
So women “who are disaffected by how Hillary was treated by the media, by how she was treated by the Obama campaign,” as Ferraro sees it, are going to flock to McCain simply because he panders to them with Palin?
Thus is the elitist, bitchy attitude of a liberal inside the beltway Washington DC woman pundit… lying about supporting Hillary because she was experienced, and not because of her genitalia, when we all know it was simply because she was a woman. How do I know she is lying? Because she claims that Hillary had the right experience to be President… exactly what experience was that? A couple years in Washington as a pampered Senator? Come on!
Then we have exhibit 2… this bitchy smear/hit piece from the liberal man-hater, Maureen Dowd in the New York Crimes:
Enthusiastic Republicans don’t see the choice of Palin as affirmative action, despite her thin résumé and gaping absence of foreign policy knowledge, because they expect Republicans to put an underqualified “babe,” as Rush Limbaugh calls her, on the ticket. They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West, like the previous Miss Congeniality types Dan Quayle and W., and then letting them learn on the job. So they crash into the globe a few times while they’re learning to drive, what’s the big deal?
The legacy of Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to be that no one would ever go on a blind date with history again. But that crazy maverick and gambler McCain does it, and conservatives and evangelicals rally around him in admiration of his refreshingly cynical choice of Sarah, an evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion crusader who became a hero when she decided to have her baby, who has Down syndrome, and when she urged schools to debate creationism as well as that stuffy old evolution thing.
Sarah is a zealot, but she’s a fun zealot. She has a beehive and sexy shoes, and the day she’s named she goes shopping with McCain in Ohio for a cheerleader outfit for her daughter.
This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one.
You see… liberal hatred of anyone who seems to be like ”regular folks” knows no bounds. It’s not that they hate George Bush because of his policies… they hate Bush because he’s not an inside the beltway liberal elitist like them.
The more shrill the libs get, the more brilliant John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin appears.
