Jennifer Rubin in Commentary gives us the how and why Palin effected the coup. It's no great secret: Palin's views are in agreement with vastly more Americans than those of liberal feminists (who never in forty years have come close to enjoying any substantial support among the populace). We should also note, however, why Palin has had such an easy time winning the unceasing, if unloving, embrace of the media: she's hugely entertaining and never dull, i.e. the opposite of liberal feminists. (Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? A. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!)
The New York Times, Andrew Sullivan and all mainstream media may despise Sarah Palin with every inch of their fiber but people take far more note of reports and opinion pieces about her over, say, the head of the National Organization for Women (quick, can you name her or remember the last time you read something about her?). It must be a bitter pill indeed for MSM to realize its unceasingly negative coverage of Sarah Palin has no effect whatsoever on her popularity, other than to increase it, but don't expect media to leave off coverage of her anytime soon: even denizens of the Upper West Side of Manhattan will lap up anything about Palin while relegating to the coffee table, open but unread, the twelve-page interview with
Elizabeth Warren Oops! It's one Terry O'Neill--what do I know, or care--(to answer the pop-quiz above) in the New Yorker, to serve as a forlorn prop to their bona fides should unexpected guests drop in.