The Newsweek cover. Sarah commented on the sexist picture but did she talk about the wording?

Holy crap. That's the most insulting thing the MSM has said about any republican since they .... ever.

Why is Sarah concerned that they chose a sexist pic of her? You'd think she'd be outraged that they said she is "bad news" for all of us!

No, she did not pose for Newsweek. I think it was a sports magazine that, by the time it hit the stands she was no longer governor of Alaska. But she did pose.

And Sarah didn't comment on the words because she can't read.

She posed for it knowing it would be on a magazine cover.

Please click here

But as it turns out, she's a vicious bitch with the instincts of a rabid marmoset. She's also built like a brick shithouse -- something she takes advantage of just as shamelessly as she milks her manic perkiness and faux grit.

The picture highlights the central concept of the headline: her fame makes her notable, but her unsuitability makes her dangerous.

As a runner, I am sure that caribou does NOT run. PLOD maybe. Those thighs are bigger than my waist. She is as phony as the day is long.

What a difference those support hose make. No, she's not a runner.

It's really stunning.

You cannot get around the fact that this is an insult.

Yet the thing we hear from her is how dreadful the picture is.

What a scary, awful, uneducated woman she is.

"How do we stop the bitch?"

and it's not like the left is yelling "Kill her!"

no wonder Palin exploits her looks. People can't see past it. It's all the talk about.

Anyway, it is very insulting. If someone said I was a problem for the whole country I'd be trying to do some damage control or at least address it ("that darned liberal media") instead she thinks its sexist they picked that picture of her.

Air head.

It's a reference to Maria von Trapp's character in "The Sound of Music". She was portrayed as a non-conformist nun who caused turmoil for the powers that be in her convent. She ultimately won over her detractors, got her dream family, and escaped the Nazis.

Sarah really has nothing to complain about, if she's not too dense to understand the analogy.

The hypocrisy of the left always amazes me. We may disagree with Palin from the word hello on, but there's no doubt that the Newsweek cover was used as a means to trivialize her. Yes she posed for these pictures, but it was for a sports magazine, not a political & news publication.

If this had been done to Michelle, Nancy or Hillary, wouldn't we be screaming "sexism"?

:eyes:

suhprise suhprise suhprise.

Whether I agree with her politics, or even like the woman, is irrelevant. I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that the left will only defend those they like, just as misogynist as the right.

;(

someone who never, ever misses an opportunity to criticize the First Lady for her wardrobe. Rarely commenting on the event or her remarks at the event, only on what she's wearing and how she's doing/wearing it wrong.

Hypocrisy amazes me too.

You pose for a picture, you get the results.

And that photo was in the media for weeks, gracing many a cover (mostly of the National Enquirer variety).

<>

It would have been just as inappropriate to have that pic on the cover of Time or Newsweek.

Now, I know that has a smaller distribution, but it's not the NE. Not to mention that was a candid - he did not pose for it. Not to mention, how many places did the Republicans put pictures of the athletic Kerry windsurfing - something he did precisely twice in 2004 - once in the primaries in an area where he had an environmental event and once as a photo opt when he was on Nantucket during the Republican convention preparing for the first debate.

Just because one side does it doesn't mean we have to do it too.

:shrug:

It was not a candid shot. This is a time period when a person not in the public eye can have a photo taken of them posted by someone else give them problems. In that light it is hard to feel sorry for a person running for President who agrees to a photo like that - the biggest problem is the use of the flag.

These magazines aren't in the business of promoting a candidate or even an idea. They are in the business of selling copies of their pubications for the highest price and in the highest quantity that they can. They put photos on the cover because they think the public wants to see that person. And not necessarily because they support the person. Palin is hot right now because she's the focus of both sides of our political spectrum (witness the hawking of her book last night in an ad on MSNBC during Olberman's show).

Of course in this case Newsweek has undercut its profits by using a photo that wasn't legally obtained. It was embargoes for a year for use only in Runner's World. The photographer didn't have the right (yet) to sell it. He and Newsweek will undoubtedly be tied up in legal issues that will peter away their monetary take.

Michelle or Nancy or Hillary wouldn't have posed for such a picture! Just look at that pic. Now tell me notable woman who want to be taken seriously would consider such a photo. Just that she chose to don that get-up and pose in that way, she's trying to exploit her sexuality. Now that it doesn't work for her so much, it's sexist I tell ya!

Sarah is pimping Sarah out. She's the sexist in this equation.

Julie

"The Odd Lies of sarah palin" by Andrew Sullivan

<snip>

"After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn't Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.

Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version."

<more>
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html

How dare Sarah allow the photographer to drape an American flag over some old chair where it is nearly touching the ground. And she calls herself a patriot!

regardless of the photo.... I guess Palin doesn't go by the idea that even bad publicity (which this isn't, in my view) is better than no publicity.

I didn't find the cover out of place because Palin's book is not a wonky tome of policy positions outlined in detail, it's a biography about her life, and the personal aspects of the campaign (at least that's what I've heard about it), her perspective of which seems wholly negative and not very honest.

But its a personal focus, not a political one, specifically for these reasons and the tone of her book (high schoolish "me! me! me!" -ism notwithstanding).

I thought the jogging photo fit that perfectly.

How she's leaning on a carelessly draped American Flag bugs the tar outen me, though.

She is featured in this magazine though....







:sarcasm:

Maria, the main character, is a capricious 'Maverick', who rocks the boat in a Nunnery. At least that's what I think they were going for....

Seriously, how can she claim 'sexist' when she looks happy posing that way?