I really wish I could understand the minds of the editorial page editors of the Washington Post when they picked up this column by Mary C. Curtis of the Charlotte Observer. Ms. Curtis wants to know why aren't feminists defending the sexist treatment of Michelle Obama, and why aren't they over Hillary Clinton.
As a journalist, I have stayed neutral about political candidates. But as an American, I would have been excited about the historic first had Hillary Clinton emerged victorious from the Democratic primary battle. Yet when an African American made a different kind of history, it seems that feminists can't share in the triumph.You could only write this kind of column if you willfully dismiss all evidence opposing your conclusion.
They don't have to vote for the husband to defend the wife.
Okay, I get it: Your candidate lost. You're angry.
But frankly, I'm getting a little peeved myself.
But really Ms. Curtis is just a prop for the Washington Post to once again try to start a fight between women. After all, why not elevate a writer who doesn't know what she's talking about as a way to lambast "feminists." So what exact was their thinking?