Posted by
EWRoss on Thursday, July 09, 2009 7:00:00 AM
Why is Camille Paglia just about
the only liberal feminist who ever has anything good to say about Sarah Palin.
While liberal-feminist journalists like Maureen Dowd regularly ravage Sarah
Palin in her New York Times column, Paglia has spoken admiringly of
Palin while often critical of Palin’s policy views on which they disagree.
A
good example of Dowd’s opinion of Palin is Down’s July 8 column which mocks
Palin with a fictitious diary entry. “No one understands me. It’s like I’m speaking
some Eskimo dialect or something. Andrea Mitchell follows me all the way to Kanakanak Beach and I get a French manicure and
set up this huge photo op for her, even though she spooked the salmon.”
Paglia
cuts to the chase. “Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on
her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information
about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her
role as governor. She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream
media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous
windbags.” I wonder if Dowd was the cackling witch Paglia was referring to?
At any rate, if Camille Paglia
finds something to admire and respect in Sarah Palin, then the soon to be
ex-governor of Alaska
can’t be a total dunce. Perhaps what Paglia sees in Palin is what so many other
people who like Palin see in her. She, like Paglia, believes what she believes
not because that’s what other people expect her to believe or because that’s
what you have to believe to called a liberal or a conservative but because she
came to her conclusions using her own intellect. That’s what the horde of
liberal feminists don’t like about dissident-feminist Paglia, and that’s what
they don’t like about Palin.