In case there was any doubt about the character and moral values of Sarah Palin in the minds of any Americans, there is no longer! In a short interview with Sean Hannity Sarah Palin was asked to share her “analysis” of the Republican Primary race and offer her perspective on the race. In the same breath she commented on the “hypocrisy and double standard” of the liberals who oppose the Republican candidates she :

1. Said that “character counts”

2. Used the demeaning term “broad” when speaking about Ginger White, the woman who had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain

3. Said “boys will be boys” but they shouldn’t be running the country

4. Explained that we should get back to the “issues that really matter”

While each of these comments could be the subject of an entire post, there is one common theme. Sarah Palin continues to disparage women in the most vile and offensive way. Just when we think she can’t do any more damage to the image of the American woman, she calls a woman a “broad” and excuses the conduct of an unfaithful husband by saying “boys will be boys.”

The Urban dictionary reveals just how offensive the term “broad” is. It explains that:

“Broad refers to the distance between the vagina lips of the human female. When the distance becomes wider than normal due to wear and tear, high mileage and rough use a woman becomes a broad. A broad is not necessarily a slut because all the wear and tear may have come from one man but a slut is always a broad.”

When Sarah Palin uses this term to describe Ginger White, the woman who had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain,  she is attributing blame to the woman and suggesting she is a “slut.” By saying “boys will be boys” she exonerates Cain, suggesting that he is simply a victim of his hormones. This is particularly offensive given Palin’s claim to be so committed to family values. It is offensive because of the use of women by Todd, and his history of paying women for sex.

It is even more offensive, given Palin’s own history of sexual indiscretions. Who could forget the account of a one-night stand with Glen Rice?

What about the indication of an affair with Brad Hanson, Todd’s partner?


What about the indication of an affair with Curtis Menard, who looks amazing like Track, Sarah’s first child?


What about the fact that Palin was pregnant when she married Todd?

If anyone deserves to be labeled a “broad” it is Sarah Palin herself.

However the comment “boys will be boys” indicates that Herman Cain and every other man who has been unfaithful to his wife should be excused for his behavior. The assumption is that Herman Cain’s hormones are simply too powerful to control. Palin indicates he is a victim, and it is the fault of the “broad” who caused him to be unfaithful to his wife for 13 years. Palin misses the point. It is not the act of sex for which Cain should be condemned. It is the deceit and breach of trust for which he should be accountable. If he had divorced his wife and “lived in sin” for 13 years with Ginger White we would not condemn him. If Herman Cain and his wife had agreed that they would not be faithful to each other, and have sex with other people, we might not have understood that decision, but we would respect their right to determine the boundaries of their relationship. By saying “boys will be boys” suggests that Cain is without blame or responsibility, and that the wrongdoer is Ginger White. The indication is that “boys will be boys” but “girls can’t be girls.” In these four short words Palin indicates she endorses a double standard.

It is interesting that Sarah Palin didn’t call herself a “broad” when she got pregnant out of wedlock. She didn’t call Bristol a “broad” when Bristol got pregnant out of wedlock. She didn’t excuse Levi by saying “boys will be boys” when he got Bristol pregnant.

Palin didn’t call her daughter-in-law a “broad” when she got pregnant out of wedlock with the child of Track.

Sarah Palin was right about one thing. “Character does count.” Sarah Palin has none, and that matters.