John McCain could not have won without her.  She energized the base and gave them the energy to show up despite all the predictions of a landslide.  She pulled in those honest Hillary voters who were angry over the sexism aimed at her.

Governor Palin’s appearances on SNL helped to humanize the ticket; they were in danger of becoming only a caricature of themselves.

Her attacks on Obama/Biden were the only real criticism that received any coverage in the MSM. 

Her personal warmth and touching story softened the image of conservatism without diminishing any of its ideals.

She has recreated the feminist ideal for a new generation of women by redefining it away from the culture of abortion as God.

Feminism is off-track.  What was once a well-intentioned and much-needed movement has devolved into exactly what some critics (at the time of its beginnings) predicted it would become.

The girls went wild with 1 million abortions a year, many in the second and third trimesters.  Before this issue was decided in 1973, the leading spokeswomen, and spokesmen, assured America that they only wanted abortions in the first trimester and partial-birth abortion (infanticide) was never mentioned. Obama’s support for certain forms of infanticide is the logical extension of the casual culture of abortion.

The girls went wild with their support of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky situation.  Just like the overly aggressive defense lawyers in rape trials that liberal feminists justifiably reviled, they attacked the accuser; in fact, they attacked all of Clinton’s accusers (Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broddrick* and Lewinsky).  As long as Bill was a Democrat who protected abortion, the wild girls did not care about his misogyny and, predictably, lost credibility, while lowering the bar on proper behavior for everyone.

The girls went wild with the sexual revolution.  There was, from the beginning of this free sexuality, pressure on girls to become sexual at a younger and younger age.  We have a pornification of the culture that compels many young women to behave in very sleazy manner.  That is how we got Girls Gone Wild and other cultural developments that are demeaning to women and America as a whole.

Sarah Palin threatens liberal feminism.  She stands squarely against all of the ways that feminism went awry and stands strongly for all the positive aspects (equal pay, equal access, equal opportunity) about which it was supposed to be. 

Sarah stands in stark contrast to the vulgarity of portions of American culture, for which the country has liberal feminism to thank.  Governor Palin’s presence on the national stage must remind the leaders of this movement that they are not only complicit in the degradation of women, but they are driving the changes that are so harmful to their constituents.

* An interesting article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8DFV5H06&show_article=1

The Washington Post claim that its endorsement of Barack Obama is mostly about Sarah Palin is boldly indefensible.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post said on FOX News, “This was not a choice of the lesser of two evils. We like Senator McCain and Senator Obama.” This statement was the set-up; voters are supposed to believe that the Post struggled over its decision. The Post continued the feint with, “There is any number of things to respect about what he (McCain) did.”  This line pretends to show the sincerity with which the Post admires John McCain.

In order to sell the farce that it was considering McCain, the Post needed to create a boogeyman, or in this case, a boogeywoman.  That fall gal was Governor Sarah Palin.  To construct the illusion that Palin was a disqualifier they had to ignore her accomplishments and obvious talents and concentrate on something else.  Hmm, what could that be? The editorial board of Washington’s leading paper chose to focus on some interviews by left-leaning “journalists” who should be on Obama’s payroll.

The Post doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that many of the questions by Gibson/Couric were silly, a form of petty and small-minded journalism, and not typical queries asked of Vice Presidential candidates. The Post must have also ignored the debate, in which Palin did very well, answered questions more candidly than Biden, and did not make up trips to Home Depot or lunches at a restaurant that closed in the 80’s.  The Post only looked at evidence they considered damning, or they would have arrived at a different decision.

Not only did the Post use convenient and flawed logic to eliminate John McCain from consideration, it brought that consideration to the number two spot on the ticket and compared apples to oranges.  Marcus continued, “I think the difference about their inexperience is that Sarah Palin has not demonstrated what Barack Obama has on the campaign trail, which is a deep and nuanced and broad (read liberal) understanding of issues.”

So, Obama’s ability to memorize information and spew it back with flowery speech is equivalent to wisdom, but Palin’s years of executive accomplishments and efforts to fight the Alaskan Republican parties’ political machine mean nothing?  This is a strange and convoluted double standard.

The Post article stated, “Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.”

Are these reservations because Mr. Obama’s centrist rhetoric does not match his very liberal record?  Do the reservations come from the fact that Mr. Obama has a history of associations with extremist, America-hating radicals whom he has not had the courage to challenge?  Is hope enough of a reason to entrust the future of the country to someone whose background has not been completely vetted? Does the Post hope that Biden will not make racist comments to visiting dignitaries?

The most ridiculous claim made in the Post editorial was that Obama was “a master of substance and detail.” Not only is he often wrong, but also he deliberately lies on many occasions. So, Obama’s mistakes and lies don’t count, but Palin’s frustrations in hostile interviews count twice?

Can anyone cite an instance where the Post defended Governor Palin from the indignities that have been aimed at her?  No? That’s okay, though, the Post’s smear, and that’s what it is, is just another nail in the coffin of old-style, liberal feminism; Sarah’s the future.

The Washington Post is guilty of journalistic malpractice.