With Sarah Palin’s understandable announcement that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska, predictable and outright cruel invective oozed out of the mouths of the loathing left. Why do so many liberals have such an unhinged hatred of this woman? Why do so many alleged feminists and female members of the mainstream media openly and gleefully despise Palin?
As I have said elsewhere, for the last ten months, like the regularity of the Sun rising or setting, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times relentlessly hurled insults at Palin, this past Sunday being no exception. Why? If -- as Dowd and other attackers on the left maintain -- Palin is inconsequential, ignorant, untalented and part of the unwashed masses, why not just let her recede into history? Why the constant attacks?
As to why Vanity Fair and other liberal outlets go after her, the answer is quite simple: money. With uncounted thousands from the left who equally hate Palin, Vanity Fair and the other media outlets understand -- especially in a bad economy with declining circulation -- that there is gold to be mined from the fragile minds of those who hate. For them, this is the story that keeps giving. And as long as the uncounted haters from the left continue to froth at the mouth at the very mention of Palin, Vanity Fair, Keith Olbermann and others will feed the beast for ratings and revenue.
Fine. I get that. But why Dowd and the feminists? With regard to The New York Times columnist, I asked a female friend of mine who happens to be a psychologist, what might prompt the anger? She mentioned a host of possibilities, but settled on one theory. That being that Dowd "may be threatened or envious of Palin...or both. As an aging but still attractive woman, Dowd may resent Palin's good looks. Further, as a single woman of a certain age, she may be envious that Palin has a husband, a family and has carved out an accomplished political career."
While not a fan of psycho-babble, it does seem to be a plausible explanation.