Sarah Palin is the peppy cheerleader in high school all the boys thought was so sweet but the girls knew was really a vicious shrew.
Or so says one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers in a deftly written explanation that goes beyond the “of course you like her, you’re a man who likes hot chicks” argument we’ve all grown tired of making to some of the men in our lives.
There’s more to it, of course. I suspect that many women are first and foremost insulted at the notion that Palin represents them. Disgusted that they were supposed to be overjoyed at the chance to back Palin, who came by the VP nomination in a move that so obviously pandered to the “angry Hillary” vote.
Is she really the candidate Republicans are putting up in 2012 — Palin, who abused her office to enact vendettas instead of legislation, used taxpayer (and later campaign) dollars to fund her extravagant lifestyle, and still blames everyone but herself for any failure she’s met?
As the reader, once again with precision, points out, Palin’s name shouldn’t even be on our collective lips:
The Republican women I know who love Palin are a great deal like her–simplistic thinkers who are always feeling victimized themselves. I have a feeling that if the McCain camp had spent more than a weekend checking Palin out, a woman on his staff (my money would be on Nicole Wallace) would have figured out what kind of person she was and none of us would know her name right now.
Now it’s incumbent upon the both parties to find women for office who women want to be associated with, and want to support. Unless, of course, they want to have another Frankenstein’s monster on their hands, running amok on a “Going Rouge for Revenge” book tour across the midwest.