The PINOs are so desperate to bring down popular Palin they are even denouncing sexism and misogyny. The Hillary hater extraordinaire at the New York Times, Frank Rich, is so hate-filled against popular Palin that Rich even defended the object of his extraordinary hatred – Hillary Clinton (history of Frank Rich HERE). Frank Rich, sexist and misogynist and Hillary hater had this to say about past hate-filled attacks against Hillary Clinton:
Americans have short memories, but it’s hardly ancient history that conservative magazines portrayed Hillary Clinton as both a dominatrix cracking a whip and a broomstick-riding witch. Or that Rush Limbaugh held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton on television to identify the “White House dog.” Or that Palin’s running mate, John McCain, told a sexual joke linking Hillary and Chelsea and Janet Reno. Yet the same conservative commentariat that vilified both Clintons 24/7 now whines that Palin is receiving “the kind of mauling” that the media “always reserve for conservative Republicans.” So said The Wall Street Journal editorial page last week. You’d never guess that The Journal had published six innuendo-laden books on real and imagined Clinton scandals, or that the Clintons had been a leading target of both Letterman and Leno monologues, not to mention many liberal editorial pages (including that of The Times), for much of a decade.
Sexist and misogynist Frank Rich is lying. Rich and the New York Times and creepy friends like Sally Quinn along with other Dimocrats were the ones who most trashed Hillary and Bill Clinton. Yes, the Republicans and Ken Starr and other louts attacked the Clintons. But as smarmy as the Starrs and Gingriches have been, the Dimocrats like Frank Rich have been much worse. The Republicans never called Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton “racists”. The “racist Clintons” was an entirely Dimocratic set of smears. Now Frank Rich and the Dimocrats write about Sarah Palin in the same way they lied about and trashed Hillary Clinton.
The sexists and misogynists are trashing Sarah Palin with code words deployed against women such as “nutjob” and “erratic”.
Is Sarah Palin beyond reproach? Has Sarah Palin made questionable political moves and less than admirable appearances which cannot be discussed? No and yes – Sarah Palin can be criticized and she is far from perfect. Charlie Cook, the very well known pollster and columnist, questioned Palin’s political moves – but notice how he does it – without using code “that bit*h is wacko” language.
The political community’s reaction to Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she would resign on July 26 was swift, withering and very nearly unanimous. It’s hard to dispute that Palin handled the announcement badly, but was her decision to resign really crazy, or just unexpected, with the press reacting to an unorthodox move by declaring it insane?
Charlie Cook recognized that Palin’s resignation was “unorthodox” and thought her handling of the announcement went “badly”. But Cook did not resort to code language of sexists and misogynist. Indeed, Cook makes a strong case why Sarah Palin might have made a wise, an intelligent, a politically astute and clever move by resigning:
First, look at the issue of not seeking re-election in 2010 and work back. A good case can be made that seeking a presidential nomination has become an extraordinarily difficult undertaking in terms of organization-building, fundraising and cultivating the relationships necessary to win. And perhaps doing that well and being an effective governor are mutually exclusive. [snip]
Running for president is now a minimum two-year, full-time job. [snip]
So assuming Palin would not seek re-election in 2010, what value would she get from spending the next 18 months as a lame-duck governor, having to contend with a recalcitrant state legislature that already has shown little interest in making her look good, while trying to lay the groundwork for a national campaign? [snip]
The ugly sausage-making aspect of governing, particularly during difficult economic times, was going to afford her few opportunities to look good, but plenty of headaches, over the next 18 months. Why do it? Why not take a bit of grief for bailing out early and get a head start on 2012?
Finally, it appears that Sarah and Todd Palin are not people of great wealth, and it’s a decent bet that they would have little income during 2011 and 2012, with the two of them campaigning full time. [snip]
In short, Palin’s decision to step down earlier seems totally reasonable, even if badly executed. The widespread negative reaction among the political press seems to be a combination of shock that a presidential contender was doing something outside the box (she actually gives up power — how extraordinary! — and puts all her chips on a presidential bid earlier than they are accustomed to), and a disdain that many in the press have for her and anything she does — as she reciprocally seems to have for them. [snip]
The bottom line is that Palin, who was a relative nobody in the party one year ago, has little time to waste putting together a 50-state effort. This move gives her an additional year and a half to do it.
Think we’re off track comparing the sexism and misogyny weaponized against Hillary Clinton to Governor Sarah Palin? Ask yourself this: Have you ever seen Governor Sarah Palin in a pantsuit?
* * * * *
Hillary Clinton is known for wearing many pantsuits. When Hillary, in the normal exercise of clothes wearing, provoked Robin Givhan of the Washington Post to write about Hillary’s cleavage we wrote Boobs. We invited readers to see real boobs instead of fixating on Hillary’s.
Hillary likes, and is known for wearing, pantsuits, Sarah Palin is not known for wearing pantsuits.
Why then did Mr. Ed, the talking horses’ ass, Schultz attack Sarah Palin as “an empty pantsuit”? Sarah Palin is known for wearing skirts and dresses (she was attacked on how she paid for clothes she wore during the campaign so there is quite a history on this “issue”), not pantsuits. Why then did Mr. Ed, the talking horses’ ass, Schults attack Sarah Palin as “an empty pantsuit”?
The attack by Mr. Ed on Sarah Palin came as Palin’s children were under attack by the Big Blog boys angry that another woman had slipped past their attack nets and this time actually made it onto the national ticket. Remember the DailyKooks Dimocrats and the sexist and misogynist attacks?:
Sept. 1 — The campaign statement served to knock down the far-fetched suggestion on the Kos site — based partly on a perusal of photographs — that Palin’s infant son, Trig, had been secretly delivered by Bristol. But it also sparked a new round of journalistic self-examination over whether such family matters should be pursued. [snip]
But blogger Andrew Sullivan, a right-leaning former New Republic editor who supports Barack Obama, pushed the story about the baby, who was born with Down syndrome. Citing unresolved questions and the campaign’s refusal to release the medical records involved, he writes: “The circumstantial evidence for weirdness around this pregnancy is so great that legitimate questions arise — questions anyone with common sense would ask. . . . After all, this baby was a centerpiece of the public case for Palin made by the Republicans.” [snip]
The controversy erupted as a debate was taking shape over whether some media criticism of Palin’s limited government experience has been sexist. Liberal radio host Ed Schultz was telling listeners Monday that Palin was an “empty pantsuit” who had set off a “bimbo alert.”
Andrew Sullivan persists in his attacks on Trig as a child, not of Sarah Palin, but of her daughter. The other rumors which the Big Blogs pushed was that Todd Palin had impregnated his own daughter. These additional rumors appear to have been mostly, but not totally, abandoned.
Why did so many PINO boys (and women) follow the disgusting Andrew Sullivan and his smears? Why did not mainline Democratic groups rise to defend Palin and the attacks on her family. Where were the mainline women’s groups when women were under attacks, which “family man” John “Are you my daddy? Edwards was spared?
* * * * *
Why was there silence from women’s groups when Hillary and Palin trashing became the norm?
Many of these PINOs reside in Big Blogs run by boys (and some Left Talking women) but many PINOs now treacherously run “mainline” interest group organizations and many are (think Robert Wexler) considered community leaders. We’ve discussed the treachery of mainline women’s groups (and Gay groups, and Jewish groups, and African-American groups) not only against Hillary Clinton in the last election cycle (think NARAL endorsing Obama over Hillary) but most importantly against their own constituencies (see, HERE, HERE, and HERE).
In short, what happened is that the “mainline” interest groups and “leaders” began their activist lives as representatives of their communities. Eventually these organizations (Women’s groups, Gay/Lesbian groups, etc.) and “leaders” became mere appendages of the Democratic Party. Now, these organizations are mere appendages of the Obama Dimocratic Party. That is why Gay groups continue to raise money for the treacherous Obama and why women’s groups and pro-choice groups and others, to a lesser or greater extent, supported a never before seen or heard “present” voting Obama over long time champion, ally and fighter Hillary Clinton.
Consider: Governor Sarah Palin is a very successful woman. She is a woman. She is a governor of the state of Alaska. She is a mother of several children. She is married. She is married to a somewhat blue-collar man of some Yup’ik Eskimo heritage. Governor Palin is “hot”. Governor Palin’s husband, Todd, is “hot”. Governor Palin’s husband is athletic and appears happy and Governor Palin is athletic and appears happy. Governor Palin’s husband shares family responsibilities and usually while she is at work Todd takes care of the children. Both Sarah and Todd enjoy vacations together and fish together. From all appearances Sarah Palin and Todd Palin like and respect each other.
Consider: Modern Feminism, as Betty Friedan (writer The Feminine Mystique, Co-founder NOW) described it, sought the right for women to be allowed “into the mainstream of American society now” in “fully equal partnership with men”. Feminism was about choice. Feminism is not about slavery to a role whether that role is leftist agitator or frumpy housewife. Feminism was about choice. Feminism is about choice.
I ask myself why I’m so dissatisfied. I’ve got my health, fine children, a lovely new home, enough money. My husband has a real future as an electronics engineer. He doesn’t have any of these feelings. He says maybe I need a vacation, let’s go to New York for a weekend. But that isn’t it. I always had this idea we should do everything together. I can’t sit down and read a book alone. If the children are napping and I have one hour to myself I just walk through the house waiting for them to wake up. I don’t make a move until I know where the rest of the crowd is going. It’s as if ever since you were a little girl, there’s always been somebody or something that will take care of your life: your parents, or college, or falling in love, or having a child, or moving to a new house. Then you wake up one morning and there’s nothing to look forward to.
At the time, feminists were fighting a societal value that “the female cycle has defined and confined woman’s role”. Friedan quoted a March 7, 1960 Newsweek article (apparently Newsweek was as lame then as it is now):
She is dissatisfied with a lot that women of other lands can only dream of. Her discontent is deep, pervasive, and impervious to the superficial remedies which are offered at every hand…. An army of professional explorers have already charted the major sources of trouble…. From the beginning of time, the female cycle has defined and confined woman’s role. As Freud was credited with saying: “Anatomy is destiny.” Though no group of women has ever pushed these natural restrictions as far as the American wife, it seems that she still cannot accept them with good grace…. A young mother with a beautiful family, charm, talent and brains is apt to dismiss her role apologetically. “What do I do?” you hear her say. Why nothing. I’m just a housewife.” A good education, it seems, has given this paragon among women an understanding of the value of everything except her own worth. . .
Yes, Obama Hopium addled addicts, feminism fought against “anatomy is destiny” and for the rights of all women, all women.
And so she must accept the fact that “American women’s unhappiness is merely the most recently won of women’s rights,” and adjust and say with the happy housewife found by Newsweek: “We ought to salute the wonderful freedom we all have and be proud of our lives today. I have had college and I’ve worked, but being a housewife is the most rewarding and satisfying role…. My mother was never included in my father’s business affairs. . . she couldn’t get out of the house and away from us children. But I am an equal to my husband; I can go along with him on business trips and to social business affairs.”
The alternative offered was a choice that few women would contemplate. In the sympathetic words of the New York Times: “All admit to being deeply frustrated at times by the lack of privacy, the physical burden, the routine of family life, the confinement of it. However, none would give up her home and family if she had the choice to make again.” Redbook commented: “Few women would want to thumb their noses at husbands, children and community and go off on their own. Those who do may be talented individuals, but they rarely are successful women.“
A very strong argument can be made that Friedan and her fellow middle class feminists did have a veiled contempt for the lower classes (and lesbians) but as the movement grew Friedan and others understood that Feminism had to come to terms with their class prejudices (and eventually champion lesbian rights) and the rights of women who chose to work at home.
The class conflicts continue today from those who think they are Feminists but in reality are brain dead, well educated fools and tools of the Dimocratic Party of Obama. Well educated fools are everywhere today (Bobby Rush called Obama “an educated fool”).
Feminism has always being about human liberation. Feminism seeks the liberation of men and women from traditional roles just for the sake of traditional roles. Feminism has been about all men and all women not just the politically correct ones.
Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have caused panic amongst the PINOs because they highlight the differences between PINO words and PINO actions.
The PINO panic has just begun.