Although my heart remains on the storm-wracked beaches of Galveston, we must turn from the onanistic pleasures of nostalgia and bear the loss of treasured places as with all else, so I soldier on and return to the world of poly-ticks. . .
Not since the coming of Obama himself, and maybe not before that, has any political figure brought forth the tsunami of comment we’ve seen with Sarah Palin. She seems to scramble neat categories in a way that many find quite disturbing. I could post a hundred examples, but just read the words of these two Palin-tologists, both of whom are feminist intellectuals:
First, author Camile Paglia, a self-proclaimed atheist and supporter of Bill Clinton and Ralph Nader.
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment. . . . I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.
Next, Wendy Doniger, professor of comparative religion at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School:
Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican Party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working-class women.
Guess that clears it up. She’s either the next Madonna or some kind of unsexed pretender who defies biological classification. Anyway, I don’t remember–did Dan Quayle stir the pot this way? Jack Kemp? Hmm.