What don't the writers understand? That Sarah Palin is strong (some would say ruthless), successful, has a job, has a family, yet is anti-abortion? I think they understand that. So it must be something else.

You say liberals are disappointed in colored people because their per capita crime statistics are higher than average, or so I take your remark, despite liberal policies aimed at helping them over the last few decades. (Let's just ignore the fact that this isn't true for all non-white races.) Do you mean that white women haven't disappointed liberals because feminism has been more successful?

In this case, I would guess you're saying that white women have taken full advantage of the benefits of liberal policies designed to end discrimination, and therefore haven't disappointed liberals, but that Sarah Palin is turning the clock back to a more sexist time, despite having benefited from those policies herself, and is thus disappointing to liberals, even though most white women aren't. So watching her is like watching a junkie.

Is that right? But in that case I still don't get what the writers don't understand. They don't understand why she would choose to put the clock back? I don't think it's that hard to get why successful women might choose to embrace conservative policies. Surely religious background is one important cause.

But more importantly, I don't think liberals are disappointed in colored people. I think they understand that racism is real and that there's no quick way to eliminate problems arising from endemic factors like the physical housing estate environments, growing up in disadvantaged and dysfunctional families, and so on.