After all, they're supposed to be the great supporters of women's issues and equal rights.
This obvious hypocrisy has gone largely unnoticed as liberal reporter after liberal reporter jumped on a man's bandwagon despite a clearly more qualified and experienced woman being in the race.
Yet, as the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol pointed out in a blog posting Saturday evening, the final Democrat act of misogyny and sexism was Obama picking Biden as as his running mate, a man that received virtually no public support for his presidential bid as compared to Hillary Clinton who got roughly 18 million votes:
Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it's the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).
What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)--neither Biden nor Hillary has any.
In the end, supposedly feminist media members submarined the efforts of the first serious female candidate for president, and are so fixated on getting the man they supported in the White House that they can't even bring themselves to be disgusted by how Obama didn't even consider Clinton as a vice presidential option.
Maybe they'll recognize the atrociousness of their behavior if "Saturday Night Live" does a skit on the subject.
