In the grim aftermath of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump on Tuesday, Maureen Dowd informs us in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism":
"But Sarahcuda shows that we are truly the equals of men, capable of narcissistic explosions, brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed."
And all this while I thought that Hillary was the first to break that barrier. Narcissistic explosions? Consider the following from Edward Klein's October 10, 2015 New York Post article entitled "Clinton’s camp says she ‘could have a serious meltdown’":
"Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.
'Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,' says a campaign aide. 'She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.'"
Brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed? Honestly, can you think of a better example than Hillary allowing her foundation to accept millions of dollars from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women and from banks guilty of conspiring to undertake currency manipulation?
Specifically with respect to Hillary, Maureen declares in her opinion piece:
"Women should support her because if she founders, it will be bad for women."
Sorry, Maureen, but I beg to differ. If Hillary is indicted for receiving top-secret emails via her home server, it will be good for everyone, inasmuch as failure to indict Hillary would amount to an indictment of the American criminal justice system.