Maureen Dowd compares Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin's political trajectories, and finds that where once both were lost, now -- through the amazing grace of finding a role that fits the pantsuits - one is found.
The money part.
Sarah once criticized Hillary for being a whiny presidential contender, arguing that women who want “to progress this country” should not complain about being under a “sharper microscope,” but instead should just work harder to prove themselves capable.
Now Sarah is a whiny presidential contender, complaining about the sharper microscope that women wanting to progress this country are under and rejecting advice to work harder to prove herself capable.
As to the whining charge, Palin preemptively answered the criticism in early July when Time Magazine asked her about the apparent about-face.
Q: At one point during the campaign you said Hillary Clinton whines a little bit too much about being in the public eye. Do you now sort of sympathize with her?
A: What I said was, it doesn't do her or anybody else any good to whine about the criticism.
And that's why I'm trying to make it clear that the criticism, I invite that.
But freedom of speech and that invitation to constructively criticize a public servant is a lot different than the allowance to lie, to continually falsely accuse a public servant when they have proven over and over again that they have not done what the accuser is saying they did.
In other words: they weren't lying about Hillary, but they're lying about me, so I'm entitled to complain.
What political candidate hasn't been the victim of lies? Did Reagan have to endure more than a few?
0 comments:
Post a Comment