Kathleen Parker pronounces of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that “it is impossible to argue that these two women were not treated unfairly, often cruelly, by both the media and the public — and even by their own campaigns. What gets leveled at women is of a different order than what men endure — and no woman in the public arena would insist otherwise.”
Hmm. Do we have some examples of that? This is what Parker wrote on October 24, 2008:
One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten . . .But there can be no denying that McCain’s selection of her over others far more qualified — and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter — suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by . . . what?
Suggesting that Palin got on the ticket by seducing (not literally, she hastened to add in her 2008 column) McCain, qualifies, I think, as cruel and of a different order than what men are subjected to by the pundit class. Parker wasn’t a fan of Palin, of course, skewering her in particularly vivid terms. (“My cringe reflex is exhausted,” she wrote in September 2008.) She is entitled to her opinion. But it really takes some nerve to now decry the excessive venom with which Palin was attacked: “What’s clear is that women are held to a different standard than men and, when deemed unworthy, are attacked specifically as women according to stereotypes we pretend to shun.” Yeah, exactly.