Rendell also said that Arizona Governor and Homeland Security Secretary-nominee Janet Napolitano is perfect for the job because she has no family, “no life” and can devote “literally 19, 20 hours a day” to it.  CNN’s Campbell Brown took umbrage because, she said, Rendell’s comment was sexist:

It may be personally insulting and impolite for Rendell to point out that Napolitano “has no life,” but sexist? No.

Brown also seems to believe that nobody mentioned Napolitano’s predecessors’ personal lives and suggests that the reason is because they were men. Actually, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff’s personal lives went unnoticed because they had traditional families. Men without traditional family lives haven’t gone unmentioned:

Like other aspects of his life, the unmarried Souter’s social activities resemble those of an 18th century gentleman, when an unmarried relative was often the backbone of the community, with the leisure to do what those with children did not have time for. Like Henry Higgins, Souter may be happiest spending “his evenings in the silence of his room; ((in)) an atmosphere as restful as an undiscovered tomb.”

There are a lot of reasons people have discussed Justice Souter’s status as a confirmed bachelor. None of them have to do with the fact that he’s a woman.

There’s plenty of sexism in the world. CNN obviously wanted as many excuses as possible to play the embarassing Rendell clip, but it ought to find an excuse that doesn’t involve falsely accusing him of gender bias.

Thank you for visiting the official Sarah Palin For President 2012 website!

This site was created after the 2008 election and has quickly become the most visited Sarah Palin website. We have grown to an organization of thousands and are growing every day. We receive thousands of visitors who are interested in seeing Sarah Palin as the next President of the United States of America.

Sarah Palin has done more for the United States this year than she probably ever thought possible. Over the last year she has traveled the country and has demonstrated what true change looks like. She is a fighter of morals, a maverick politician, and an extremely intellegent [sic] person. She is a remarkable woman and she needs to run for President in 2012.

The electorate may have prefered [sic] Barack Obama over John McCain, but in 2012 voters will have a different decision. A choice between right and wrong, moral vs. unmoral [sic]. Most importantly, we will have a choice between more of the same, and change.

Please visit this website often and link to your myspace, facebook, and websites. 2012 is only a few years away [four -- ED]!

I find myself wishing them well.

(H/T: AC)

MSNBC’s less interesting coverage:

In an unusually candid discussion yesterday, Clinton said he was particularly unhappy that two of his appointees – Laura D’Andrea Tyson as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors and Carol Browner as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency – were being treated by some women’s advocates as less important than other appointees because their jobs are not Cabinet level.

“I believe that if I had appointed white men to those jobs, those people, those same people would have been counting those jobs in a very negative way,” he said. “They would have been counting those positions against our administration, those bean counters who are doing that, if I had appointed white men to those positions.”

Gesturing toward O’Leary, who is black, he said that no women’s group or black group had included her name as a recommended Cabinet choice. O’Leary would be the third black appointment Clinton has made.

“They are playing quota games and math games,” Clinton said at the news conference, noting that he had interviewed only women for EPA administrator and for the head of his economic advisers.

Today, the Houston Chronicle (my hometown paper), urges Barack Obama to focus on both merit and diversity in making his appointments:

President-elect Barack Obama enjoys two strengths as he faces the formidable task of choosing a Cabinet. First is the breadth and diversity of his support: blue-collar Anglos, Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, white youth and an important share of independents and Republicans. Second is his world view: Democratic, to be sure, but autonomous enough to tap the best minds for ideas.

His Cabinet selections should reflect these strengths, drawing from the ethnic and ideological coalition that spurred his victory, while rejecting any tokenism. Hiring a Republican or other minority, only to ignore them, would undermine Obama’s credibility as a president who seizes the best ideas whatever their source.

Here’s another suggestion: focus entirely on merit. This is a nation of 300 million people. Sure qualified supporters (who come from diverse backgrounds) ought to be considered for undersecretary and deputy positions, but in case it escaped notice, Barack Obama will be the nation’s first black president.  Of all the pressures he feels (and should rightly feel) in assembling his government, creating a “diverse” cabinet should be among the least important.

Discrimination still exists, but whoever serves in the Obama Administration will answer to a black man. We’ve got all the symbolism we need. Obama’s cabinet could look like Bushwood Country Club’s membership committee, the Hollywood Producers Guild, a casting call for Moesha or Stanford University’s math club and it just wouldn’t matter. After eight years of near total failure in government, competence is what counts — now more than ever.  Bean counters and boot-licking yes men (and women) ought to butt out.

But come on — settle on a message already. On the one hand, Islamist freaks are euphoric that Barack Obama (their most successful sleeper agent), won the election and will no doubt soon begin imposing  Sharia law on the US.  On the other, rational Republicans were right all along: Obama is in for a rude awakening from the Islamic World, which hates all Americans, even naive liberals like him.

Republican disconnect number one takes place at 11:03 am Wednesday on LGF, where Islamist freaks were jumping for joy at Obama’s win:

That’s kind of what’s going on with Republicans these days.

Via Hot Air: David Frum says Nicole Wallace is the source of negative leaks about Sarah Palin. He essentially says that she’s a vicious bitch, but he’s got a better vocabulary than I do.

And speaking of negative leaks about Sarah Palin, the latest is that she didn’t know that Africa was a continent, not a country:

Also, Palin may have squeezed the RNC for more than $150,000 in new clothes — and they weren’t all for her:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family-clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

In other GOP implosion news, House Republicans say that the problem in the last couple of cycles is that their party wasn’t conservative enough.  That’s right, double down on Bush conservatism. See you in 2010.

Update:

Keith Olbermann sums it up: