Can the national media ever get enough of Clintonizing their political coverage?
Apparently not. Today in the New York Times it's whether Hillary will get her dander up and challenge Sarah Palin for supremacy among women voters. Even conservative cable commentators recognize that the big majority of Clinton voters will find much not to like in Palin's stand on issues. But get a load of some of the Times' facile off-handed assumptions. And be sure to hang around for the Arkansas Republican woman who can read people's smiles and eyeballs:
Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Palin have little in common beyond their breakout performances at the conventions and the soap opera aspects of their family lives. Mrs. Clinton always faces high expectations; Ms. Palin faced low expectations this week, and benefited from them. Mrs. Clinton can seem harsh when she goes on the attack; Ms. Palin has shown a knack for attacking without seeming nasty. Mrs. Clinton has a lot of experience; Ms. Palin, not so much. Mrs. Clinton is pantsuits; Ms. Palin is skirts.
Some Republican delegates in St. Paul saw starker differences.
“Sarah’s smile is sincere, which I never felt from Hillary, who has anger and resentment in her eyes,” said Ann Schmuecker, a delegate from Mountain Home, Arkansas, where she met the Clintons decades ago.
What's the word I'm looking for here? I guess schmuck will do.