In her latest article, Riley attacks Palin for botching an answer put forth to her by first, a voter, and then followed up by questions in another interview with Katie Couric as she sat next to her running mate, Sen. John McCain. This and other criticisms culminate in a thesis that Palin's run for the Vice Presidency will set women back decades in the struggle for equality.
Really? Take these lines:
Palin should consider history. Women have worked hard to get ahead in America -- in industry and politics. Women have made great strides that include Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. Clinton didn't win, but she showed what was possible with the right candidate.
Do you really think the next time a woman runs for public office, that an opponents is going to use the "Palin ditz reel" against her? That would be absolute suicide for any male candidate running against a female opponent to use Palin and extrapolate her so-called "ditziness" to all women running for office. Can you imagine the backlash? No, because no candidate, not even the most vile chauvinist in the nation is stupid enough to do that. The National Organization for Women's switchboard would short-circuit from the number of calls and complaints about any idiot who would do such a thing, and they would raise money hand over fist in an effort to destroy the female candidate's opponent.
Furthermore, setting women back decades? A little harsh, don't you think? It's not like Geraldine Ferraro set women back when she ran as Walter Mondale's Vice President in 1984. Women have achieved breakthroughs in so many places and on so many levels, that this will not hinder any further progress via a loss or victory in November.
All this really shows is the (unwarranted) hatred many liberal columnists have towards John McCain seething through their word processors.