Amanda, in your post about why there would never be a liberal Palin , you had me agreeing with you for a sentence, when you wrote “if someone waved a magic wand and made her and Hillary Clinton sudden death contenders for the presidency right now, Clinton would win in a heartbeat.” No kidding. Even I’d vote for her. But then you lose me by stereotyping dirty rotten conservatives.
Interestingly, you write that Palin gets attention because she plays her role in a sexist culture. Yet you fail to mention that Clinton-her imaginary foe in your imaginary sudden-death runoff election for the presidency-got to where she is precisely because she rode her husband’s coattails to power. (Could Hillary have gotten there on her own? Maybe. But we’ll never know.)
You write that liberals can’t be fed a fantasy woman, but then you blame evil conservatives for “luring” liberals into being uneasy with feminism because then they won’t get to have hot sex anymore. (So, are liberals impressionable or not?)
And then, best of all, you write that liberals don’t have contradictory demands. Really? Feminism is a “sisterhood,” but you can’t be part of the club if you don’t believe in abortion. Women are supposed to have the opportunity to “do it all” if they want to, but when someone you don’t disagree with, like Sarah Palin, does that but by a different path than you think she should, well, she must be cheating or she’s not really doing it. (And I write that as someone who is long over my Palin crush.)
Lastly, I find it intriguing that liberals, whose emotional needs are too complex to be summed up to by photo-ops , can have their beliefs encapsulated by a poster .
