From a recent book review
in the New Yorker
[Republican political analyst Leslie] Sanchez acknowledges that Sarah Palin was a problematic candidate. She writes that Palin’s interviews were "a mess," and that Palin gave Katie Couric "lackluster answers—many of which were downright incoherent." And yet she manages to wonder why female voters wouldn’t "applaud her candidacy as a fellow-woman?"
When Gloria Steinem wrote, in the Los Angeles Times, that "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton," Sanchez was outraged. She tells us, "As I read that, it means, 'you can run, Sarah Palin, but you won’t get my support because you don’t believe in all the same things I believe in.'"
Um... yeah. That's what politics tends to be about. "I will vote for this person to be my political representative, because their beliefs and priorities are similar to mine so they will be easily able to represent me." Not that the logic always holds when it comes time to put campaign promises into action, but there's nothing illogical about deciding who to vote for based on whether you agree with them
Duh.If you haven't read the book review, it's liable to tick you off, for the reason stated at the close of the piece:
The amazing journey of American women is easier to take pride in if you banish thoughts about the roads not taken. When you consider all those women struggling to earn a paycheck while rearing their children, and start to imagine what might have been, it’s enough to make you want to burn something.