Of course they think Couric bullied poor Sarah. What people don't seem to understand is that for conservatives (and some men) Sarah Palin is the right sort of woman and Katie Couric is the wrong sort of woman.

Sarah Palin is the anti-Hillary, and, because she is, Sarah Palin makes many who were anti-Hillary actually feel safe.

No, I am not talking about people who were anti-Hillary because of Hillary's AUMF vote or anti-Hillary because they were concerned (wrongly, I feel) with the dynastic issue and with Bill, but the anti-Hillary in every other way.

Allow me to elaborate:

pantsuits vs. skirts

thick ankles vs. shapely legs

self-indentified vs. male indentified

prochoice vs. "we have to protect babies even when they are the result of rape"

classy hairdo vs. big hick hair

assertive vs. smiling and uncertain

steel-trap mind vs. "I'm just learning here."

post-menopausal vs. obviously fertile

modestly attractive vs. oh-wow-we-can-have-dominatrix-fantasies.

feminist vs. ardent feminine - ist

privileged education vs. working class striving

formidable resume on children's rights vs. "we protect them more if they ain't yet born"

Sarah Palin is very dangerous and it has nothing to do with her intellect. She is a working class domininist-believer's right-wing wing jerk-off dream. She is what every man who fears powerful and competent women wants and what every woman who is threatened by women seizing power longs to be. She is what people whose thinking about their own sexuality is comforted by clear gender boundaries wants to see. She is a man's woman and a girl's slumber party invitee.

They love her. Having decided that they love her and adhering to ideology rather than critical thinking, nothing will move them.

mindless, salivating heterosexuality.

First of all, people are acting as if a man cannot find a woman to be an object of sympathy and/or sexual lust and still think at the same time. This is insulting to heterosexual men.

Do you all really think that straight men are that dumb???

Second, you may be making unwarranted assumptions about Glenn's own inclinations.

Remember that old saying about the word A-S-S-ume?

Men's so-called greater sexual needs should not be any individual woman's problem if she is not interested.

I don't care if you express your sexuality all that you want as long as you do it with consenting adult partners and off the street.

As they sometimes say: Get a room!

Otherwise, I would contend that I have a right in the interest of saving gas and the environment to drive a horse and carriage down I-35 in Dallas during rush hour. Would I be arrested? You betcha and with some justice.

Get a room. Fuck your brains out. Do it with someone you buy if you like, but just keep it off the street. People who keep asserting their right to make their own decisions about the sexuality as a private matter will get no crap from me.

But, thank you very much, I don't want to watch. I don't want me or my daughter or any other woman to be mistaken for a prostitute on the street and harassed.

Of course male sexuality is different from women's but that should be any individual woman's problem if she is just not interested.

It seems to me that the biggest problem that Broadsheet trolls have is that they don't understand that women get to say no and that if there are not enough prostitutes to willingly service the so-called "needs" of men women still get to say no. Men not being able to find an available vagina is not a problem that should be incumbent upon women in any way whatsoever because any other scenario justifies rape.

Buy your "vagina," marry your "vagina," or just have a serial number of girl friend "vaginas" -- but don't assume that any individual woman's vagina should ever be yours just because you feel that you have greater sexual needs.

something. She can't just go naked. After all, even with her predictable clothing, she is still engaging in more variety than the satorial choices of male candidates.

It is fascinating to me that I have seen several people online taking about Sarah Palin in a pantsuit. Are they blind? Obviously Palin has legs sticking out of her skirt. It is difficult to believe that they haven't noticed. Therefore their word choices must mean something else.

People so loved to mention with contempt Hillary Clinton's pantsuits as if it were some sort of fashion faux pax. Yet almost every season some noted designer or other will feature a pantsuit or two. Pantsuits never really went out. It might make more sense to call them a fashion classic, like the shirtwaist dress.

Therefore this mention of pantsuits on a woman who rarely wears a pantsuit leads me to conclude that subconciously the writers may be expressing a fear about a woman wearing THE PANTS.

I am actually going somewhere with this because I think it tells us something important about how the media and the public perceive Palin. Gary Kamiya has already speculated in almost masturbatory prose about her as a dominatrix. The article was featured with a *mock* up of her in a bustier and with a whip.

Between the notion of Sarah as a sex object and the notion of her as inappropriately seizing power falls the shadow. I suggest that people pay attention to the shadow.

Glenn at least feels pity for her and his readers seem strangely shocked that Glenn has emotions. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to see this as a failing on Glenn's part. It acknowledges her human qualities. Even bimbo sluts salivating for power have them.

Why is Palin "George W in a pantsuit" when she mostly wears skirts?