The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

Sarah Palin & The Great Liberal Coalition Crackup--Part 6--Hell Hath No Fury Like The Hillary Women Scorned

By The Neville Awards
Posted Sept 3, 2008

The liberal media establishment's long knives are out for Sarah Palin and there are a variety of reasons.

We will give you the conventional reasons first:
  • She's inexperienced. (but she has more executive experience than The One)
  • She was only a mayor of a small town
  • She's only been governor of Alaska for two years (but she took on the entrenched and corrupt Alaska Republican power structure and beat 'em all)
  • She has too many kids
  • She has a down-syndrome baby
  • Her daughter is pregnant
  • She's John McCain's trophy Vice President
  • She tried to ban books (not true)
  • She kills animals and eats them, and wears their skins
  • She was a beauty contest contestant
  • She sometimes wears her hair up; no that’s not a “beehive”
  • She has a college degree in Journalism, but we won’t hold that against her
  • Her acceptance speech was written by a (SHOCK!!!) speechwriter
  • She's a conservative
  • She's outside the mainstream
  • She hasn't had a serious interview yet (by a liberal journalist)
If we hear any more lame excuses we'll include them.

For 40 years the feminist establishment told women they could have it and a "satisfying career". But like Clarence Thomas, who is the wrong kind of black, Sarah Palin didn't fit the profile. Why? Becuase she is the wrong kind of woman...she is a conservative. When you don't fit the liberal profile...Harvard educated, political pedigree, liberal matter how qualified a candidate may be the powers that be will come after you with everything they've got.

Neville Update: just when you thought the Dems would learn that the constant sexist attacks on Sarah Palin aren't working, along comes New Republic's uber elitest wannabe Michelle Cotter, who just can't figure out what's going on. Excerpted from her article on 9/8/08:

Can someone please tell me what the hell happened? This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton entered the primaries as the first female front-runner in our nation's history. Better still, she wasn't running as a Woman Candidate. Whether she won or lost--though the widespread assumption was that her victory was inevitable--Hillary's candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.

By primary's end, the whining was so intense and Hillary's struggle so interwoven with the cause of women's rights that the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: "We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all."

Then, just when you thought it was all over and the recovery could begin, Republicans handed us Sarah Palin.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care.

Even setting aside Palin's political views, the governor's candidacy is a slap in the face to all women. No matter how feisty she is or how darling she looks with a rifle on her shoulder, Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This makes her a bizarre choice for a candidate who has been hawking the need for experience and gravitas in these troubled times--and makes the cynical tokenism of Palin's selection all the more vivid.

By far the most insulting aspect of Palin's candidacy is the McCain team's hope that placing a ballsy female on the ticket will attract some former Hillary supporters by stoking their gender-based resentments against Obama and the DNC.

None of which is to disparage Palin's inherent intelligence, political savvy, or judgment. It's entirely possible that some day she could make a top-notch vice-presidential, or even presidential, candidate. But, at this point, we are talking about a woman who makes Dan Quayle circa 1988 look like an elder statesman.

When Conservatives launch an attack like this they are branded as mean-spirited and in need of medication. So we won't say she's mean, just whiney and as old style a shoulderpad feminist as there could be. She might need to monitor her blood pressure. Don't believe us?...go to and read the comments.

Excerpted form the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, 9/3/08:

The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.

Here is a sampler of media comment on Governor Palin this week:
  • Eleanor Clift, the McLaughlin Group: "If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in many places across newsrooms."
  • Sally Quinn, Newsweek: "It is a political gimmick . . . I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country."
  • E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Palin is, if anything, less qualified for the vice presidency (and the presidency) than [Harriet] Miers was for the court. But there is one big difference: Palin passes all the right-wing litmus tests."
  • Maureen Dowd, New York Times: "They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West."
  • Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "But as a parent in the media, I also know that the Palins assumed this risk. Anyone who watched coverage of the Bush twins' barroom exploits knew that the avert-your-eyes stance toward candidates' children has its limits."
  • Charlie Cook, Beltway pundit, on PBS's "Charlie Rose": "I had a friend that had a young person tell them that they had three interviews to get a job as a server at Ruby Tuesday! So this is like putting a whole -- for someone that hasn't played on a national -- Geraldine Ferraro had more -- Dan Quayle had undergone more scrutiny, had played on a bigger stage than this. This is putting an enormous risk on someone he didn't know. And he has to just pray that it works!"
What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.

There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent.

With all due respect to the Wall Street Journal there a couple more reasons the long knives, particlularly among liberal media women, are out for Sarah Palin. They are pissed off. Mad as hell. For the Washington D.C. and Manhatten doyenne scribblettes and dowager media empresses this was supposed to be their year. They were the ones who were going to put Hillary over the top and into the White House. It was their moment and the moment passed them by.

Hell hath no fury like the Hillary women scorned. And these scorned women are so entrenched in the 40 year feminist/liberal/socialist agenda they have no choice but to remain in the tank for Obama while longing for Hillary. They are bitter and jealous on so many levels. A mass psychosis has taken hold much like Bush Hatred Syndrome. They are now going to take it out on Sarah Palin. She is the object of their revenge.

So you see attacks on her kids and her husband. They smear her with an imaginary affair just as they tried to smear McCain. (Isn't it ironic how the media ignored the John Edwards affair for a year?) They claim that having a down-syndrome baby will distract her from her official duties. And...I'm shocked, could one of her kids be pregnant? These ancient feminist icons are so twisted up inside that they will say and do anything to exact their pound of flesh.

But there is also another reason. Let's face it...with the exception of some of the cable TV babes the bloom is well off the rose for these female fossils of the old media guard...if there ever was a rose in the first place. So along comes Sarah Palin, 42 years old, sports lady, ex-beauty queen and certifiable hottie. The collective heads of Maureen Dowd, Sally Quinn, Peggy Noonan and Eleanore Clift must have exploded simultaneously. Hopefully these tired, old, liberal broads, now unmasked as the feminist hypocrites they are, are finished, kaput, done. Hopefully we will see them yammering to each other at an assisted living facility for bitter journalists. Hopefully we won't have to read how, as a woman, you can have it all, unless you are a conservative.

The Great Liberal Coalition Crackup rolls on.
Reading List