Michelle Malkin has a post-speech roundup of very respectable progressives who – having branded Palin a gender traitor – wallow in some pretty maniacal sexism. Exhibit A: Harry Reid’s snarling reaction to Palin’s speech:
Sarah Palin took a pointed shot at Reid in her high-stakes VP nomination speech. Palin noted that if Reid “can’t stand John McCain” — a recent Reid quote in a Las Vegas newspaper — then McCain must be doing something right in Washington…
Here’s Reid spokesman Jim Manley’s response, sent to Politico a few minutes ago: “Anyone who knows Sen. Reid knows he never backs down when he’s fighting for what’s right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong,” Manley said. “Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don’t change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed Bush-Cheney policies.”
Two of CNN’s liberal commentators thought that “shrill” was just on this side of “hysterical” as a way to demean powerful women. Democratic lifers Paul Begala and Donna Brazile thought that this charge was just a way for right wingers to shut down legitimate criticism. Now I’m not sure if shrill is inherently sexist. I’ve used it across the board to describe the over-exuberance of everyone from American academics to global jihadists to Palestinian diplomats to – yes – feminists.
But if “hypocrisy” is the nadir of public argument – if it ostensibly justifies shameless attacks on 17 year old girls – then it would appear that the political left is being less than honest. The Washington Post ran a political blog that openly mocked a reader who tried to defend the mere suggestion that “shrill” isn’t a sexist label when applied to Hillary. The far-left professor Stanley Fish said that it’s positively hateful to trap Hillary in the catch-22 of either being “faking” or “shrill.” The Boston Globe editorial staff echoed Fish and described the catch-22 as being between “a sniveling female” and “shrill.” And the Columbia Journalism Review -all but openly stated that pundits who brand Hillary as “shrill” are playing on sexist stereotypes even if they’re making legitimate points.
And wouldn’t it be it be just too perfect if a certain much-aggrieved pro-Obama blogger specifically named a fake award after conservative women whom he considered too “shrill”?
After the jump, some particularly asinine denials from Larry King’s two Democratic panels.
Speaking of hypocrisy – Stephanie Miller on Larry King: “I found it really distasteful” when Palin used her kids as political props after asking the media – apparently absurdly – not to viciously attack her 17 year old daughter. Bonus strutting: “you could only just imagine if this was a Democratic candidate” who was “using them in interviews and on stage.” You know what would be really uncomfortable here? If Obama ever used his kids as political props and then turned around and declared them off limits. Or if his two girls went on stage to talk to him via satellite after Michelle Obama spoke at the DNC. Because if that had happened, it would almost seem like this tool was going out of her way to take offense – and then to express it in the dumbest, most narcisistic, most stereotypical language you’d expect from a committed identity politician. In fairness, Debbie Schultz and Kiki Mclean both pointed out that Miller was being a touch overly-nuanced.
Schultz and McLean, in their turn, deflected questions about the progressive chauvinists telling Palin to stay in the home by baldly denying that they exist. Examples: “I don’t know who it is that’s made that charge” and “if someone could show that to me [it would be sexist]“. Since this blog is all about post-partisanship: details on those progressive chauvinists can be found here and here. You’re welcome.
The repeated slams that trashed Palin for using speech writers and/or reading off the teleprompter – obvious and clumsy sexism, yeah? Any conservative who repeatedly demeaned a female Democrat with these cheap shots would – quite rightly – be called out for chauvinism. The claim would be made – not unfairly – that this was a not-very-subtle way to imply that women politicians can’t have thoughts or form arguments on their own.
In fairness to Democrats – this is what happens when a pliant media lets you get away for decades with making really dumb arguments.
UPDATE: Like many Democratic feminists, Schultz and McLean are managing their cognitive dissonance about progressive “get back in the kitchen” attacks via out and out denial. Fail:
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she waited until they were grown before she ran for high political office… Palin supporters insist that her out-of-control home life will resonate with many American families. Yes, if they’re from Mars or perhaps on welfare.
Charmed, I’m sure.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Now this is how you fisk a willfully clueless “there’s no sexism here” media hack.
References:
* Liberal men in a panic; Update: liberal women spinning, too [Michelle Malkin]
* Palin Attacks Reid And Reid’s Office Responds [CBS News]
* Shrill About Hillary [WaPo]
* All You Need Is Hate [NYT]
* Shrill-ary [CJR]
* Should Obama’s kids be off-limits? [Projo.com]
* A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers [NYT]
Previously:
* The Ugly Left – Disgusting Anti-Malkin Sexism In Wonkette’s Comments Section
* NPR In Denial About Sexism On the Left, Gets MR Exactly Wrong On Jeri Thompson
* The Sexism Scandal You’re Not Hearing About: Democratic Representative Resigns After Being Called A Whore… By Another Democrat
