Carly Fiorina, McCain Spokeswoman, had this to say on Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin: Well, I think that she looked a bit like her. I think that, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance.
Can someone explain to me how this qualifies as sexism? One woman is more substantial than another because of her views? That is correct. If your views are outdated, and your experience lacking compared to someone else, you are less substantial as a candidate for higher office, sorry, just the facts ma'am. I'm no Hillary fanatic, but even I can tell you that.
Isn't the McCain camp done trotting out this tired argument yet? Sarah Palin's handlers are turning her into the girl who cried sexist, and someday she just might get treated unfairly base solely on her gender, too bad her campaign will have wasted all their credibility attacking a comedy show.
Comments