Riley starts right off the top, not even taking a few lines to get to the blinding hatred, with the headline telling Palin to "leave the race before you further hurt women." One could easily ask Riley to stop writing "before she hurts women further," but she goes on anyway.
In her first paragraph, Riley assumes right off the top that Palin "cannot win" the upcoming VP debate with Joe Biden. Then Riley seems to think that a VP candidate cannot have a difference with the top of the ticket when bringing up Palin's Pakistan comment that seemed to differ with McCain's position. If this no-conflicts ideal is Riley's criteria for the proper sort of vice presidential candidate she should be writing far more readily about Joe Biden than Sarah Palin. About every time Biden opens his mouth he's contradicting Barack Obama these days.
Riley thinks that the more people learn of Palin the more "frightened" they will become.
... But the more we learn about Palin, the more frightening she becomes. The more she learns about the job and domestic and foreign affairs, the more frightened she should become.
If Riley wants fright night, she should turn her attention to the top of the Democrat ticket. We have an arrogant, corruption steeped "community organizer," up to his neck in corrupt Chicago machine politics, who has surrounded himself with terrorists, communists, socialists, crooks, money launderers, racists, and anti-Americans and who has been running on a fake "change" ticket. You want to frighten people? Get to know Barry Obama. THAT is frightening.
Riley goes on to wildly exaggerate Palin's Pakistan comment and seems to think it is a disqualifying incident and one that shows that Palin will "hurt women." Why? because, says Riley, "Women have worked hard to get ahead in America." One might wonder how Riley got her job if women in America have to show so much better stuff than men. She clearly lacks that stuff.
Riley ends with the ever so common slight against Alaska with, "This isn't a beauty pageant or a mayoral run or even a gubernatorial campaign among the moose."
One might wonder if Riley was similarly making fun of Arkansas and Bill Clinton in 1993? After all, in almost every category Arkansas was a tiny state and was one of the worst of America's 50 at that time. Arkansas was perennially among the last in education, highest in unemployment, highest rates of the poor, worst job opportunities, and was the least desirable state in the union when Bill Clinton had the gall to claim HE was the best qualified to become president of the whole country. Clinton went from one of our least states to POTUS in one fell swoop. What arrogance caused him to imagine he could go from such a puny, poor state to the White House is anybody's guess. At least, he shouldn't have had such gall to make the attempt using Riley's criteria, it appears, IF she were to apply it in a non-partisan fashion, of course -- which we know she is incapable of doing.
Riley ends with an acrid "Sarah Palin, go home." I have to say, I don't care where Rochelle Riley goes as long as it isn't in front of a keyboard again.
I think the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate has proven one thing: leftist women are not qualified to write political analysis. These lefty female writers just aren't experienced enough with politics to write commentary. They haven't seen enough, read enough, been through enough to be able to do anything other than name call, spew bile and regurgitate prosaic talking points without any meaning. They are so steeped in only their one-sided ideological dogma that they are utterly blind to all other matters. According to this narrow, leftist only worldview if you don't believe in abortion, you're not wrong, you're evil. Don't believe in socialism? You're not wrong, you're evil. You've gotten elected anyway? You're obviously a Machiavellian manipulator who people would never vote for if they really knew what you really stood for... and you're not just wrong, you're evil.
There is no capacity of these blind partisans to see that there are millions of Americans that don't view the world through the same red colored glasses that their aging hippy university professors fitted them with. They haven't the capacity to analyze the American political landscape. They can only squeeze everything they see through that little red book that contains all their talking points.
These female journos are simply out of their depth when attempting to actually comment about anything other than their own, socialist opinion. When it comes to analyzing politicians they are simply too parochial in their viewpoint and cannot see the forest for the trees.
Yes, these women writers set women back decades.
(Photo credit: Monica Morgan)
