A leftover from yesterday via the Free Beacon, in honor of the “Roseanne” premiere blowing the roof off ratings-wise in middle America. That’s another data point in the great debate over how much politics had to do with the huge audience on Tuesday night. The show did well in New York and Los Angeles but it did really well in Tulsa, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Trump naturally took that as a vote of confidence in him from his base, phoning supporter Roseanne Barr afterward to congratulate her. Whether or not middle America tuned in to see a political reflection of itself or a cultural reflection (well, with major caveats), it tuned in.

All of which makes this mini-tirade by “Roseanne” cast member Sandra Bernhard that much more notable. It’s not just that she’s on the other side of the election from Barr. It’s the contempt she has for people who voted like Barr did. Particularly women.

“I think it’s a couple of issues. It’s being either under the thumb of your husband—for the election, it was being so offended by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton’s legacy that you turned on her,” she said.

“Or feeling inadequate, feeling like, ‘How can somebody [like Hillary] be so educated? How could somebody have brought themselves up from their own experience and gone to the top—educated herself, fought for rights, civil rights, and equality?’ I think that’s threatening to a lot of women,” she added…

“A lot of women have compromised, given in, gotten married, raised their kids, and not had the luxury of being able to think for themselves,” Bernhard said.

It’s almost endearing to see someone more than a year after the election, asked to explain the failures of a terrible candidate widely disliked on the right and left, cough up a hypothesis that Hillary’s simply too awesome for many women to process. How can she be so great? She makes me hate myself by comparison, so I must oppose her. This is a real theory being advanced on a serious news show by someone employed by a woman Trump voter.

As for the idiocy about Trump-supporting women being under their husbands’ thumbs, you can’t blame Bernhard for that. She got that theory from Hillary.

While we’re on the subject of Roseanne, can we nip this sort of thing in the bud before it gets rolling?

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/979435763292131335

Republicans are forever starving for validation from celebrities. They get so little of it that when someone sympathetic to them in entertainment scores a major success, they rush in to bear-hug them. Hannity in particular has proved, per his treatment of Julian Assange, that there’s nothing he won’t forgive and forget about an influential person if that person can serve his current agenda. But before we crown Roseanne the new queen of conservatism because she voted for Trump and makes no bones about it, a gentle reminder: She’s a crank.

https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/979435727585980419
https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/979386601926148097
https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/979394641589018624

She ran for the Green Party nomination for president in 2012, touting herself as “a tireless advocate of Occupy Wall Street.” Now she’s a Trump booster. Odds are no worse than 50/50 that he’ll do something over the next two years that’ll alienate her and she’ll be backing the Socialist Party candidate in 2020. Proceed with caution in embracing her. That goes quadruple for POTUS.