This photo (below) of Sarah and Todd Palin has done more than any yet of Sarah Palin to drive the left even further bonkers crazy whenever her name is mentioned or picture seen.
One article,which included the photograph, about the Palin’s visit to Chick-Fill-A at The Huffington Post AT THIS LINK received 11,000 comments – the overwhelming majority being foaming-at-the-mouth hate-filled bile.
Apart from the usual hate-filled rants, an interesting new theme has arisen -“damn them, those Palins are just too happy.” With adjuncts “look at this smiling happy couple” and “wearing their sanctimonious smiles.” So the Palin’s can’t, of course, win. If they are quietly getting on with their lives, they must be divorcing. If they are obviously not divorcing, then they are just too happy – which is not normal to a leftist frame of mind, it seems.
It seems to me that apart from the purely partisan hate, much hate is generated against the Palins because she lives an active life, which the left expects to see only from leftist women, plus she holds true to her right-to-life beliefs – to the ultimate degree. The rest of the reasons for Palin derangement are best left to the psychiatric profession to examine, as they are beyond my ken – 11,000 hate messages, incredible.
There was, for quite some time, a theme that the Palins were going to be divorced. The maniacal “Immoral Minority” mad bloggers kept on advising that “an iceberg” was coming which was going to blow away the pretense of a happy Palin couple. This was abetted by the ridiculous Levi Johnston’s tittle tattle (which he rescinded and then redid). Scandal sheets ran a number of “Palins to divorce” stories, which time has given the lie to, of course.
Here’s “Huliq”: “Todd and Sarah Palin getting divorced?”, quoting The National Enquirer! Which story, they advise, “may or may not be true.”
Here is one journalist (sic) Chelsea Hoffman, who apparently has no shame:“Is Sarah Palin getting a divorce?” (note the get-out-of-jail question mark), and here is part of Hoffman’s bio, which speaks volumes, doesn’t it:
.
.