The media is asking for our help in sorting through Sarah’s emails.

If the fourth estate didn’t constantly correct itself politically it could simply report the story: that Sarah Palin is exactly what she appears to be, a mediocrity token-promoted far beyond merit because she is an attractive woman–a token going bad.

Palin’s fashioning of a political career out of little more than the liberal media’s reaction to her has the cynical genius of a profound betrayal. Where would simple Sarah be, after all, without tokenism? Without the fallacy of disparate impact? Without feminism? Sarah Palin caps this narrative like an obscene punchline.

Her supporters on the right can’t or won’t point this out–they want to believe, like Sarah, that she’s here because she’s special. Others, making no pretense of ability or achievement, openly hold support for her as an expression of contempt for the influential class. Call her The Bird.

On this question her critics on the left must recourse to the standard line: a conservative woman betrays her sex. But doesn’t Sarah also betray feminism by virtue of her unworthiness of the stature to which she’s been promoted?
She has no business considering a run for president, yet she contends, without shame, as if she does. Where did this sense of entitlement come from?

Alas, I’d like to blame feminism, but isn’t democracy itself to blame? Isn’t Sarah–and many more of various types to come–really inevitable? Don’t we all own her?

But the left is right. Sarah Palin would be nowhere without feminism.
They’re right again: Sarah Palin is a dangerous fool.
Keep these in separate vials.