Far lefties obsess over Sarah Palin’s breasts – yet it’s conservative males who objectify women? (UPDATE: GOP WOMEN WINNING WAS “BLOW TO FEMINISM”?)

Just a few days ago, I wrote a post about the “concern” amongst some liberals that “hot” conservative women were being objectified by conservative males based solely on their looks. It’s a bogus charge, for reasons I explained in that post, but – and I know this will shock you – did you know that in the same week GOP women were kicking bootie across the country in primary elections, some far left wingers were/are obsessing over whether or not Sarah Palin … had breast implants done?

See Tigerhawk’s post for a small sampling of the various links out there where this “issue” has been discussed. He also makes some excellent points about the rampant left wing idiocy and hypocrisy on display:

First, does the left enhance — and I use the word advisedly — its appeal among the electorate by suggesting that we ought to ridicule women for getting breast implants? The boobery need no further reminder that the left disdains their sense of aesthetic, but if liberals want to beat them over the head with it, fine. This may, in the end, be Palin’s greatest contribution to conservative political fortunes: She suckers the chattering left in to reminding everybody that they are, well, snots.

Second, we note that privacy in medical matters is the legal foundation of the Constitutional right to abortion, per Roe v. Wade. This right to privacy is apparently so sacred that (so says the left) it is reasonable to sacrifice fetuses to defend it. One would think that the left, therefore, would be reluctant to intrude on even Sarah Palin’s medical privacy. Of course, that would require some measure of intellectual honesty, which is apparently beyond the capacity of many liberals when Sarah Palin is involved.

Yes, including Andrew Sullivan, who has been obsessed with Sarah Palin’s uterus for going on two years now, popular liberal sites like TPM Muckraker which featured a story about Sarah Palin owning a tanning bed, and the HuffPo, which published a story inquiring as to whether or not Palin had had lipliner tattooed on. Let’s also not forget the 2008 attacks launched by liberals – including high profile liberal Alan Colmes – suggesting that Palin had posed for nude photos when she was younger, that she had her first son Track out of wedlock, and that she named her children after witches. Then there was the alleged photo of her in a red, white, and blue “patriotic bikini” with a rifle in her hand – an image that was Photoshopped. Also, remember the moonbat in Chicago who painted a nude picture of Sarah Palin … using his daughter as the model?

I could go on and on, but the point has been made: They say it’s conservative males who judge conservative women solely on the basis of the way that they look, but from my vantage point it ain’t conservative men putting conservative women in a box based on their looks and bodies, but instead rabid lefties. Since she doesn’t toe the “females are victims” line, far leftists clearly they think she has nothing to offer in the political arena – so they judge her based on her looks.

The very definition of “objectifying.”

Where’s the widespread “feminist” outrage? I won’t hold my breath.

Update – 7:47 PM: Take a look at this nonsense:

Former New Yorker editor Tina Brown appeared on Thursday’s Good Morning America to deride the mostly Republican women who won primaries on Tuesday as “wingnuts” and to sneer that they represent a “blow to feminism.”

GMA’s “Morning Mix” segment featured Brown and journalist Catherine Crier, part of a panel that usually includes reporters agreeing with each other over liberal talking points. After Stephanopoulos recited the numerous women who won nominations on June 8, the current Daily Beast editor dismissed, “…The only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism.” [Audio available here.]

She then added, “Women, too, can be wing nuts, is the point.” Crier offered the developing liberal line that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorini’s business experience could now be a liability: “I think it’s quite interesting that the whole CEO movement out there in California. Because, here we are with all the Wall Street consternation and, yet, they’re touting their credentials as major CEOs as qualifications.”

[…]

TINA BROWN: Yeah, I mean, it was. I mean, in some ways, it’s, again, representation that people are looking for otherness. You know, they’re so disgusted with incumbents, they’re looking for something completely different. And, as it happens, of course, women usually are seen as, you know, an alternative because many more men are in there. But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.

Got it? You stray off the rad liberal “feminism” reservation, then you’re not a real woman.

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that …