sarah palin in running shorts?

Did you see this week’s Newsweek cover featuring Sarah Palin in running shorts? Apparently the photo was originally taken for an issue of Runners World and was resurrected for the current issue of Newsweek.

As Cokie Roberts put it on Good Morning America, “[The photo] is a way of saying, ‘Don’t take this person seriously, she’s just a chick in shorts.’”

I understand that because Palin just released a book and is back in the limelight this type of cover could be considered fair game. However, it does seem that Newsweek’s choice was misguided at best and sexist at worst. Surely they could have selected a different photo that still communicated the article’s sentiment.

I’m curious how others interpret this cover. Was this a goofy but ultimately harmless choice by the magazine, or does the image communicate something more prejudiced on their part?

David Swanson

November 17, 2009

culture, news

sarah palin

97 responses to “sarah palin in running shorts?”

Paul Lamoureux

November 17, 2009 at 8:53 am

Look, the woman is undeniably hot, until she opens her mouth. I don’t understand the national fascination with this person. Who cares what she has to say, she abandoned her job as governor of Alaska. That’s all I need to write her off.

Reply
1. Marti
  
  November 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm
  
  Bottomline…the more the media trashes her, the more popular she will become.
  
  Reply
  1. mik
    
    November 18, 2009 at 4:52 am
    
    she has every right to do when there is an answer to everything thats all
2. Robert Elmore
  
  November 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm
  
  Wow man you have problems. If all the left wing ass bags would have not cost the state of Alaska over 2 million dollars defending her from BS stuff. She would have stayed in office. Maubama took a sh@t on state senate to run for US senate then dumped on the US to run for Pres. Palin did more good for Alaska that baby killer barry obama ever had done. She brokered a multi billion dollar deal for a natural gas line. balanced the budget of Alaska with a surplus, cut alaska property tax to zero and provided oil revenue to the people of Alaska. What did Obama do oh ya he help crack whors and druggies to beat money out of the system. Kool Aid Drinker try sisting down and doing the math. Bush went weak with the first bail out yes and then barry ran with it The united state is falling. The international market is getting ready to drop the dollars for the yen. This country now is in bebt 3 times what is was under Bush or any other Pres. in over 200 years and it is going to get worst. With Obama care how about today in the news Gov. says women should cut back on mamagrams ya man it is already starting. We thanks to your kind and nancy P. and Joe but face H. Reed and the other bark humping frog liking unborn baby killing dirt bag. Are the laughing stock of the planet.
  
  Reply
  1. GJohnson
    
    January 5, 2010 at 11:47 am
    
    I sincerely hope that you are not able to procreate.
3. David
  
  November 18, 2009 at 1:55 am
  
  I haven’t heard her say anything that makes her unhot. Could you please give us a few examples?
  
  Do you know why she stepped down as Governor? She said something to the extent that one doesn’t need a title to make an impact and she thought she could do a better job without having to be governor.
  
  I think she probably stepped down so she could start preparing for 2012 though.
  
  Reply
vodkabeforenoon

November 17, 2009 at 9:12 am

I am thankful she did not become the first woman vice president. I think she could single handedly destroy everything women have worked towards.

Regarding the cover I thought they were going to talk about her running a marathon. lol I remember the article in runners world about her. It made me hate her less yet at the same time I am thankful she is not in office any longer.

http://anlimarey.wordpress.com/

Reply
1. Mick
  
  November 17, 2009 at 12:19 pm
  
  You guys have no idea what you stand for, and your politics always trump your “beliefs”. Its a joke. Palin is the epitome of what women have been working hard for, she is a working woman who has reached damn close to the pinnacle of her profession. “I think she could single handedly destroy everything women have worked towards. ” <– please, what a joke.
  
  Also, "It made me hate her less…", you see that is what motivates people on the left now, and they are quickly becoming the joke. Stop letting people telling you what to believe, and for God's sake, take your own "convictions" seriously. You are becoming a joke.
  
  Reply
  1. daisylou09
    
    November 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm
    
    Thanks, Mick…seriously, thank you! I think a lot of folks hate anyone who is one the other side of the fence from them, and don’t even give them a fair shake or hear them out. Makes me want to scream, hearing some peoples hateful and uninformed comments.
  2. Robert Elmore
    
    November 17, 2009 at 6:16 pm
    
    Mick hit it right out the park!!! Palin is a strong hard work woman. She and her family are real people living real world lives. Her and Tod are what an American family should be. It is a shame but know this being right is better than being a lier as is the boy some people call the president the boy is a joke and makes we ashamed of 52% of the voting public. The left are not true Americans they do not belive in what this once great country and the men and women that died. fought and died for. FREEDOM and power to we the people.
2. Daddymon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm
  
  She would have been doing far better than our present president. At least she would have been looking out for the best interest of America. She also would not be afraid to lead instead of bowing to every foreign dignitary. The main problem is that liberals do not recognize that conservatives whether men or women look to solve problems instead of creating them, then whine about them and then blame others. Case in point, President Obama. He voted for the tarp bill which created a deficit and then whines about what he voted yes to and then blames President Bush.
  Conservatives are looking for real men and real women and not whiners. If we were looking for whiners, we just have look at the little children because they do not know any better until they learn the conservative way.
  
  Reply
  1. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo
    
    November 17, 2009 at 4:03 pm
    
    Yeah, Palin did a great job in 2008 when she was flirting with Pakistani President Zardani, causing a Fatwa to be issued on his head. Good Job!
    
    And let’s see – Whiners. Palin whines about the McCain campaign, bloggers, the media, Katie Couric, David Letterman, Levi Johnston, “gotcha” journalism, her job – so much so that she quits, people investigating Ethics Charges, which she whines about and dismisses but will STILL not reveal the e-mails concerning these issues, whines that these ethics complaints have cost her so much money (while she was billing the State of Alaska a daily per diem to stay home), and oh-so-much-more does Palin whine about- I cannot write more, it makes me kind of ill.
    
    You are right, Daddymon – Conservatives do not want whiners – why do you think the majority of the RNC is avoiding Palin like the plague, dodging her offers to endorse their 2010 campaign runs?
Sarah Palin in short Running Shorts – Nice Legs! | News Beast

November 17, 2009 at 9:27 am

[…] https://davidswanson.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-in-running-shorts/ […]

Reply
peter womersley

November 17, 2009 at 9:40 am

Today (or was it yesterday) Sarah Palin, tomorrow Paris Hilton. What’s the difference ?

Reply
1. Daddymon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm
  
  There is a big difference. One ran a state as a governor, has a family committed to be honorable while the other is a heiress because she was born with the silver spoon in her mouth. Liberalism blinds you to the true reality of life. Wholesomeness is not high on your list, so I can see you would not know the difference.
  
  Reply
  1. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo
    
    November 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm
    
    Yeah, just ask Meghan McCain.
Roger

November 17, 2009 at 9:40 am

It wouldn’t matter if Sarah Palin was dressed in a muu-muu she would be subjected to criticism. Newsweek, like all the others, is dying a slow death so they most likely chose several outfits for her to wear and they chose the most eye grabbing without looking like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

Reply
bccoxjra

November 17, 2009 at 9:44 am

Newsweek must be trying to snag some of that Nat’l Enquirer Market.

Reply
Dan

November 17, 2009 at 9:51 am

I read the article. It is pretty funny how they try to blame her for the fact that the healthcare bill has not passed. I think theres a little more to it then that. I kind of doubt she is too upset about the picture since she must have posed for it and it will probably help sell more books. Lets face it both Palin and Newsweek mainly are interested in cashing in on the American people.

Reply
Steven Harris

November 17, 2009 at 9:55 am

She dressed in the clothes so what is she saying about herself?

Reply
1. Mick
  
  November 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm
  
  Yeah, for a running magazine! Open your eyes and read the article. What does that say about you? Blind hate much?
  
  Reply
DH

November 17, 2009 at 10:13 am

Sarah is a complete package!! Looks, talent, American, family, God and the next President of the United States!!

Reply
1. tinyfrog
  
  November 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm
  
  Funny that you didn’t include “intelligent”. But, we all know that half of all Americans have a below average IQ. Sometimes, they want to elect someone who truly represents them.
  
  Reply
website design

November 17, 2009 at 10:15 am

I’m going to preface this post by saying I am absolutely not a fan of Sarah Palin and I’m pretty sure that everything she stands for is destructive for this nation.

Having said that…

Note to Cokie: If anything is going to discredit Palin, it’s not going to be some nonoffensive publicity photo for Runner’s World; it’s going to be Palin herself. In general, she tends to shoot herself in the foot every other time she says something in public.

Out of curiosity, why would a more conservative look be more appropriate for the magazine cover? It obviously doesn’t help Hillary Clinton among her detractors. If anything, they give her a lot of flack for her look.

Reply
BJH

November 17, 2009 at 10:23 am

As a former journalist with more than 25 years experience as an editor and reporter, I think the photo might have been appropriate for Runners World, but not for Newsweek, as the photo for its lead political story. The photo might also have been appropriate for a style-page or woman’s magazine doing a softer profile of a politician and her daily life.

Photographers have always tried to push photos like this, but 10 years ago, editors at responsible major newspapers would have rejected it as a front-page political photo. Standards were very high, and a roomful of editors might debate the merits of competing front-page lead art. Everyone would have rejected this in a political context.

It should be noted that most recent presidents have been photographed jogging, and those photos have been published on the front pages of major papers. The difference there is that virtually everything about a sitting president is fair game, and the jogging photos gave citizens useful information about the president’s health, as well as an interesting look into the president’s life beyond the Oval Office.

In the current era where the mainstream media is fighting for its very survival, it’s not surprising to see the old standards thrown out the window. The Newsweek photo will obviously get the magazine needed attention and readership.

One more thing. If Sarah Palin had been elected vice president, and then chosen to voluntarily pose for this photo, I think you could make a better case for using it in a political context.

Reply
1. themarriageclub
  
  November 17, 2009 at 8:11 pm
  
  Who was the advisor on this cover for Mrs. Palin?
  
  Reply
s8529226

November 17, 2009 at 10:23 am

that is sick man
http://s8529226.wordpress.com

Reply
Kristen

November 17, 2009 at 10:24 am

Oh, DH, are you really serious? Do you know how much trouble we’d be in if she were the President? I’d take another four years of W before I’d take her, and that’s saying a lot!

Every president is American. Please don’t tell me you’re trying to keep the old, seriously failed attempt to claim that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii?

Reply
1. Tom
  
  November 19, 2009 at 5:04 pm
  
  Kristen,
  
  You are an idiot. Why don’t you keep your fingers off the keys so people will just think you’re an idiot instead of posting tripe like you posted as that removes all doubt that you are ignorant.
  
  Reply
thoughtbasket

November 17, 2009 at 10:40 am

I am as anti-Palin as just about anyone, and even I think that cover is out of line. Putting her on the cover in running shorts is clearly a way to make her seem less serious, and it puts Newsweek over with Fox in the advocacy camp instead of the news camp.

Reply
1. Daddymon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm
  
  Change the name to basket-case because you did not give any thought to your comment. If were not for Fox news reporting what is going in this administration, we all would be hood-winked, bamboozled and up the creek without a paddle. Unfortunately, just some of you are. Conservative political principles will get us out of the mess we are in. Sarah is a major threat to the liberal agenda of self destruction.
  
  Reply
Joe

November 17, 2009 at 10:46 am

It was Newsweek that chose the image from a previous set of photos taken for “runners world.”

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/home.html

They know their magazine is failing, and they know sex sells . . . you do the math. Just since 2007, their announced circulation has dropped by 52 percent. For those of you who are critics go to the link I provided and check out the other pics she did for the photo shoot . . . they’re not so provacative.

Newsweek asks, ” How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?” Thats the first step to recovery, at least they admit they have a problem, and so do the democrats; they have been trying to solve it by “poisoning the well,” that is trashing her reputation. Ironically, for all their efforts they can’t stop her, and she’s not going away. They have a right to fear her, and its ever so obvious they do, or else they’d quit trying to tarnish her reputation. Sarah’s no dummy . . . she is a force to be recogned with, and she is letting them continue bashing her, as she knows its to their own detriment that they do so.

Reply
Bill Briggs

November 17, 2009 at 10:48 am

When I saw this blog I assumed it must be a practical joke. Next trip to the drug store, I’ll walk by and check. If it’s real, it’s a good indication of why Newsweek is losing readers.

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin or her ideology, this is just plain dumb. Newsweek writers making childish criticisms or putdowns to amuse themselves and their fellows.

Reply
Lady L

November 17, 2009 at 11:04 am

I met Sarah in Juneau last summer, just after she completed a run to support the March of Dimes. She had her son and daughter with her, showed immense interest in us, especially because my husband is a commerical fisherman from the East Coast, and my daughter works for the State of Alaska. I found her engaging, intelligent and proud of her family.

Reply
1. dan
  
  January 5, 2010 at 1:11 pm
  
  I’m sure many people are like that – but that doesn’t qualify them for political office either.
  
  Reply
Alli Farkas

November 17, 2009 at 11:05 am

Thank you BJH for your reasoned analysis based on experience in the particular area you are discussing. I’ve worked in the news media for a long time and am “appalled” (that tired old “letters to the editor” expression) by the way journalism in general has lost its ethical grounding. Don’t know that we can do anything to restore an obligation to integrity in the press, but it’s nice to know someone out there understands what it used to be all about.

Reply
1. dan
  
  January 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm
  
  Well, if there’s no integrity anywhere else in the world – why should we still demand it of our journalists?
  
  Reply
Mike Ryan

November 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

I’m sick and tired of the liberal media and their distortion of the news to the liberal view point. They should be fair and balanced in their reporting.
I hope Newsweek goes Bully-Up.

Reply
Byron Durham

November 17, 2009 at 11:33 am

I don’t see a problem with the cover photo, it is not gratuitous or distasteful. Unlike the person in the photo.

Reply
lambang

November 17, 2009 at 12:16 pm

who is she?

Reply
1. MikeN
  
  November 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm
  
  Some Tina Fey impersonator.
  
  Reply
Gary Morgan

November 17, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Not that Sarah is one of my favorite “political” figures, but, could it be that Newsweek was simply trying to provocatively call attention to the fact that Sarah Palin might be “running” for a political office? Something that it could be said is hard to hide when you present her in a running outfit. I’m just saying. At any rate, it seems to have attracted the attention the Newsweek editorial, advertising, sales and circulation staff must have intended. It’s the talk of the talkers and the subject of the bloggers. But, really……is that Palin, or Tina Fey? I might vote for Tina Fey.

Reply
Kelley Mata

November 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm

I think that Sarah Palin does a great job of establishing that she incompetent. I see no problem with the photo. If she is ever elected president, I will move to Canada.

Reply
1. vodkabeforenoon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 2:05 pm
  
  Kelley I am sure you would move to Canada. Just like all those that said they move to Canada when Obama became president. None of them are gone yet!
  
  Reply
2. Daddymon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm
  
  If she is elected, I just want to say Kelley, bye and good ridden.
  
  Reply
dr. motte

November 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm

sarah palin sales. but, every announce of sarah palin is to much…

Reply
Aaron Midnight

November 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm

I haven’t read Newsweek in about 20 years.

That being said, how on earth is it ‘news’ to tell readers that Sarah Palin is bad for America?

That’s called ‘opinion’ not ‘news’.

It *might* have been news if the subhead on the cover had said “Why GOP insiders think she’s bad for the party.” or something like that.

And I do agree that it is complete BS how so-called liberal feminists claim she is bad for women. She has been extremely successful professionally and politically (up until 2008) while raising a family.

They may not like some of the things she stands for (religion, anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, traditional standards of beauty), but I fail to see how they say she setbacks the cause of women’s rights or women’s advancement. Even Geraldine Ferraro had to admit that it was good for women to have Sarah Palin as the Republican VP nominee in 2008.

And it’s also extremely cynical and hypocritical for a magazine to use someone’s beauty to sell magazines while simultaneously accusing that person of being basically evil.

What? Hypocrisy in the news media? Say it ain’t so. Must be why the traditional media is dying a slow (but getting faster) and extremely painful death while people get their news from blogs that at least drop the hypocrisy and don’t even pretend to be objective (for the most part).

It might also be why poll after poll shows that journalists rank just above divorce lawyers and tree slugs in terms of perceived trustworthiness.

Reply
Aaron Midnight

November 17, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Oh and to the people who threaten to move to Canada if Sarah is elected – grow up already!

I may not like alot of the stuff that she stands for (or that Prez Obama stands for, for that matter), but I don’t threaten to give up my citizenship every time a politician that I don’t like gets elected.

I’m pretty sure that politicians suck in almost every country. If you lived in Canada, you’d probably be threatening to move to the United States on a regular basis.

But if you’re not happy here, I don’t believe that the Canadian border is guarded too heavily. You could probably find your way across.

Reply
Gary Fischer

November 17, 2009 at 12:40 pm

First of all, She has great legs! along with the rest of her body! As far as Newsweek choosing that picture…It’s not surprising…These left wing lunes are crazy and heartless…Just look at nancy pelosi..what a nut case! …Bringing terrorists back to new york, reckless spending, etc..etc..etc..etc.. The list goes on and on.. The Leg picture is the nothing compared to their attempt to ruin our Country.

Reply
Anonymous

November 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm

I think the question asked was about the effect of using this as the cover photo for Newsweek…I didn’t read all of the responses, since most are directed more towards political affiliations, but I think it’s interesting that they chose to use a picture of Palin in running clothes next to a title that says “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?” If you look at the picture it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense considering she doesn’t *look* like a problem at all!

Then the cover goes on to say “She’s bad news for the GOP and for everybody else too.” I won’t delve into political issues because I don’t want to, but it just seems that the picture doesn’t go with the title. If they wanted to write a news article about how bad she is, I would think they should show visually how bad she is as well, and that’s just the opposite of what they did…..

Reply
Thom

November 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Wow, Sarah Palin is still stirring up the heated conversation. Now, if only the people talking about it could use the conversational forum to gain some fruitful dialogue, THAT would be great. However, after having read all of the comments I can honestly say I hate you all less. (wink)

Reply
1. Larry Eisner
  
  November 18, 2009 at 1:37 am
  
  Thom hit it out of the park! (double wink?)
  
  Reply
harry elliott

November 17, 2009 at 1:19 pm

I think the reason that the Left hates her is because she is not
like them. I honestly would be a lot more comfortable to
have a friend, neighbor, boss or girlfriend like her than
Nancy Pelosi. I do think Hillary Clinton would be a better
candidate for VP or President mainly because of experience.

Just like Clarence Thomas, or Alberto Gonzalez whose
success will never be celebrated by the intellectua lelite the same goes for Ms. Palin. Because, and not in spite of,
she went to several no name colleges and finished
school late and was pretty much self made in her
political climb, she without a doubt connects with
the mainstream as an achiever.

The abortion issue makes the Left absolutely bonkers,
and the fact that there are 2 million performed each
year is a stat that the Left can never justify. By
Ms Pallin choosing to give birth to a Downs Child
the GOP gained the moral high ground all day and all
night in that debate. Also by unconditionally
supporting her “out of wedlock” grand daughter and
daughter only strengthens her as a woman of
courage and conviction in THAT debate.

Is she electable? Probably not as a President or VP,
but I could see he some day being a MAJOR player
in Congress. As far as the outrage for the vicious
attacks on her family, and her character. Where is
the Nation Organization of Woman now? Oh, that’s
right it’s really the National Organization of
Mean and Ugly Women and they only defend
their own.

Reply
LeLe

November 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I am not a big Palin fan. She may be a pretty lady, but I think Newsweek is very misguided in using this photo. I agree with Cokey Roberts. It seems to me the purpose is the deminish her further now that she has a book out. Newsweek does not need to get in the business of doing this…Palin is fine doing it on her own.

I watched her interview on Oprah and I’m going to read her book because I want to see if her thoughts on paper…are as disorganized as her speech is.

I understand her book is a “tell-all” more than a memoir. I understand she addressed many people such as “the media” as she calls “them” and campaign insiders in her book. I find it very interesting that she has decided to attack people the general public is unaware of. We do know who the campaign insiders are…nor will we really know them after this. It’s always suggested that you know your enemy, but why have a public fight when the public does not know your enemy. Kind of looks petty and childish to put all this out there, but I will read it and decide for myself how I feel about her afterwards.

We must keep in mind, if we only see the world thru the eyes of Palin, we are not seeing the whole picture. I expect more push back from those she attacks. Then maybe the story will start to take some shape.

LeLe

Reply
freedomactionnow

November 17, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Of course they’re trying to minimalize her. But in doing so, they only minimize themselves.

If they weren’t so worried that she’d actually get somewhere on the natinal scene, they wouldn’t give her a second thought.

Now look behind the word “YOU” in the headline. That cleverly hides the Blue Star Mothers flag.

Next issue, let’s have a photo of Hillary (or Pelosi) in the same clothes.

Reply
The Revolutionary

November 17, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Maybe Newsweek was trying to play up the fact that Palin doesn’t have child-bearing hips after having several children, thus catering to the child-bearing crowd?

I’m sure there are at least a FEW people who take “size of child-bearing hips” into account when choosing their elected officials.

Reply
Frank Thoughts

November 17, 2009 at 2:04 pm

She is clearly hot. I was amazed when I looked up some shots of her out for a jog and also standing on a stage. I was like, ‘wow! She rates in a major way!’

While liberals try to make out she is a ‘tard, her appearance on Saturday Night Live showed her to have more going on upstairs than we are led to believe.

America’s first female president should be both photogenic and fit (it’s a tough job). Hillary is burned out and shows it. Palin is fighting fit and a lovely representative of that great thing: the healthy, All-American gal.

Reply
1. vodkabeforenoon
  
  November 17, 2009 at 2:09 pm
  
  Sexist much? “Palin is fighting fit and a lovely representative of that great thing: the healthy, All-American gal.” Gosh, that is all it takes!? Maybe I should run for vice president. I am fit, young and damn do I look good in my facebook. You see me running at the next election. lol
  
  Reply
2. a brain
  
  November 17, 2009 at 2:51 pm
  
  i don’t like hillary clinton myself. i think she is evil, but the reason she looks like she’s worn out is because she is actually doing her job, unlike palin. Palin has proven to be an idiot with every interview she does. I don’t trust her as a mother so I most definitely do not trust her to hold any office.
  
  Reply
tinyfrog

November 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm

I predict this will have no effect on people’s perceptions of Palin. I’m sure a lot of Palin supporters will look at the picture and think, “Great legs! We need someone like that in the White House!”

Reply
blackwatertown

November 17, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Presumably it’s a reference to the “Is she or isn’t she running?” question. Running for Prez, that is.

Reply
Jean Simon

November 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Please, has no one noticed that the photo is a metaphor. As in, “she’s running.” And, since when has Newsweek been “liberal”? It has always been the conservative answer to Time. I guess whenever a conservative is threatened in the media, by whatever vehicle, said vehicle is automatically turned into a “liberal rag”, regardless of its actual credentials and history. As for Palin herself, if you want to stir the pot in politics, honey, get ready for some heat. Every time someone criticizes her, it’s “unfair”, “sexist”, “liberal”, “John McCain’s campaign,” or perhaps the best, “vegetarian”. Can you imagine this princess in the White House. She couldn’t even stay on as governor of Alaska for a full term, it was just too much for her and she didn’t like how she was treated. Back to kindergarten with her to learn how to play well with others. She is a national joke, a sad one, and deserves all the criticism she gets as long as she decides to stay in the public eye and garner publicity for her pathetic (book) campaign. It’s not a feminist issue, or a sexist one. It’s an issue of credentials and credibility and she has neither. Maybe she’ll run back to Alaska and stay there. I say, good riddance. The far right must have smarter, more qualified women than her if they want to play the “sex” card.

Reply
1. harry elliott
  
  November 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm
  
  John Meacham is a Conservative? Yeah Right. It’s that elitist
  “I’m more intelectual than you” rants that draw us to Ms
  Pallin. Common Sense, Reagonesque, Wheaton College
  Vs Harvard. Blue Collar, self made, small town,
  tough, Pittsburgh Steelers vs New York Yankees.
  True the Yankees have had the greatest success,
  but their buy and win at all costs is more alienating
  than endearing to many of us. As far as your Kindergarten
  Playgroud anology. Please. Sarah Palin is the Third
  Grade teacher that you LOVED. Pretty, nice and really
  cared about you BEING A KID. Nancy Pelosi and
  Hillary were like the teachers that made you sit
  in the corner for chewing gum, and only cared
  about TEST SCORES. This is just my assessment
  and I’m not alone.
  
  Reply
Dysfunctional Parrot

November 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I’m completely offended at the sexist and exploitative cover…yet disturbingly aroused.

Reply
Frank Thoughts

November 17, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Hey, considering all the crap we have to listen to from politicians – and their screwed up policies – I am prepared to have it all soothed with a hottie, rather than some crusty burn-out.

Face facts: she will have an army of advisers behind her and probably a heavy like Dick Cheney ‘really’ running the show. The president these days is more of a glamour role anyway. Palin would be a bit like Traci Flick in the film The Election.

Oh, and vodkabeforenoon: in an age of obese and ugly people, if you got the looks, put yourself forward for public roles honey. It will keep you in clover: trust me.

Reply
jibrangkhattak

November 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm

I am simply amazed how people are so obsessed in this image. The fact is this image served both her and newsweek. The give and take policy that our world works around was at play here too. She got back into the limelight and Newsweek sold more copies, that’s all there is to it. How one interprets this image is dependent on our individual beliefs.
http://www.consumerfocuspk.wordpress.com

Reply
flagsgonewild

November 17, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Too bad she is desecrating the American flag in this photo. You’d figure someone in politics would know a little about the U.S. Flag Code.

Reply
1. Tom
  
  November 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm
  
  How in the hell is she desecrating the flag. Have you read the code? Her are is resting on a flag that is draped on a chair. The code of conduct doesn’t say anything about that, plus it is code, not law.
  
  Reply
john

November 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm

lol sarah palin sucks just like obama.

As low as $4.95 Sarah Palin’s book is cheaper then toilet paper, which oddly may be the purpose best served for it

Reply
ksdksdksd

November 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm

It seems as though every culture group will protect their own and view discrimination through a similar lens. Someone can see racism in an inappropriate picture of an Africa-American but not see any offense in the photo and vice versa. Until we all make a concerted effort to attempt to view the other person or group’s point of view with sincere empathy we will always have offensive events like the photo.

Reply
Jamie Howe

November 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Not a fan, but I think she’s communicating who she is…a multi-tasking mother. I identify with that role, not the politics or her necessarily. I think it’s exactly that multi-tasking mother that mobilized voters around her during the campaign. I choose Michelle tho 🙂

Reply
Jean Simon

November 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Ah, Harry Elliott: You only want to sling, but not to be slung at. So, here goes: please spell her name correctly–it’s Palin not Pallin (oh dear, is correct spelling elitist these days?). She was and is not the image of any 3rd grade teacher I had or would want my kids to have. (Geography, another elitist subject.) I guess she did let her kid be a kid, and have a kid. Oops, now I’m a elitist liberal for thinking that parents should know what their kids are doing and try to educate them to make wise choices. Then, she used her children as stage props during her VP campaign, questionable at best, but obviously the friendly, conservative, apple pie parenting we would expect from this working, hockey mom.

You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Elliott. You defend Palin in her shorts and American flag, deluding yourself into believing that it is the awful, vegetarian, elitist left that is her undoing, and simultaneously criticize Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and the “National Organization of Mean and Ugly Women.” Me thinks you doth protest way too much.

Oh, and by the way, the whole test score thing–Bush, No Child Left Behind.

Reply
1. harry elliott
  
  November 17, 2009 at 6:27 pm
  
  It is the awfull elitist left that is ALL of our undoing. I do
  know how to spell and I’ll put my Engineering Degree up
  to yours any day even though it was a State School and
  I was in my thirties when I graduated while supporting a
  wife and two children.
  
  I didn’t ask you for your perspective on the Third Grade
  Teacher I don’t care, I was just giving you mine.
  
  As far as the Apple Pie perception. There are a lot
  of people that have children that have had children
  that are deemed “illegitimate” me included. Just
  like the Palin’s (no typo here) we stuck together
  like a FAMILY and that child is the joy of OUR lives.
  
  And as far as Bush. Education has been a Liberal
  Agenda for the longest time, not just
  the last eight years. I live in New Jersey where
  most of the funding ccmes from property taxes
  which are the highest in the nation. The only
  Federal Money that comes in goes to Newark,
  Camden, and Trenton and is wasted as
  patronage and payoffs to corrupt Democrats.
  Why do you think Corzine got defeated?
  
  Go ahead and call me a racist rednck because that
  is what you do when you disagree with someone.
  I don’t care. My grand daughter is half Hispanic,
  my girlfriend is Hispanic and I live in a neighborhood
  that is 70% African American. My friends and
  neighbors know that they can count on me for
  help both finacially and emotionally, but I
  am not and never will be an ENABLER like the
  phoney limosene liberal types that live
  in freakin’ “Milqutoast” Land like you Jean!!!!!
  
  Reply
momromp

November 17, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Eh. Don’t do a silly pose for one magazine and expect it to remain only there when you’re the public figure du jour.

Reply
Ladyplumley

November 17, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Please folks, keep your ideological bile to yourselves, left and right. Shouting doesn’t make you more right and throwing insults merely lessens your opponents ability to hear your reasoned argument.

It’s a reasonable question to ask… If it were a picture of another discredited recent governor of a state, say like Rod Blagojevich, posing in running shorts on the cover of the magazine, would this be a discussion topic? No. It is without doubt an issue because we, as a society, believe the power of sexuality that women have is one they are neither supposed to use nor acknowledge. Man’s business attire is the norm – it de-feminizes a figure, erasing the waistline and curve of the bust. A woman is supposed to dress in a non-sexualized attire to achieve the “appropriate” level of seriousness. If we have to suffer through pictures of men jogging (as we did with George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc.) we are supposed to think of them as “ruggged” and “devoted to good health.” If a woman shows her legs, she’s seen as “cheap” or “not serious.” I call that a double standard in any country.

I’m not suggesting that she show up at the capitol to work (if she ever does hold office again) in this outfit but her sexuality is for certain a part of why folks pay her a lot of attention. In our society, pretty people get plastered on billboards and magazine covers. Yes, the cynics who have written here above me are correct to note that, as the saying goes, “sex sells.” But, by the same token, a pretty woman should not immediately be suspect as an intellect. What is troubling for many folks is not that Ms. Palin’s viewpoints are so extreme (she is NOT a centrist, nor would she claim to be) but that her physical allure is somewhat distracting from her message. She is not the best orator by a long shot for the conservative wing of the party. However, her look PLUS her ardent passion for her message, attracts attention whether it is merited or not.

Back one of the earliest Seneca Falls Conventions in the 1840’s, a well-known member of the clergy spoke against women being allowed to participate in civic debate. His argument? Men’s minds are clouded when an attractive woman speaks, no man can overcome that handicap. Thus an attractive woman could speak the most useless rubbish, and men would be loathe to disagree, persuaded by means other than reason, which is the basis of the rule of law.

An interesting thought and one that seems relevant in our times…

Reply
1. Robert Elmore
  
  November 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
  
  Let us see now. We have a picture of Beerack at the beach with no shirt on . I do belive the left wing press reported. That Barack spent time on the beach today with his well chiseled pecks glissening in the sunlight. And how great it was that the president was able to show off is body. It was great for america to have such a heathy president. Hummm but Sara in running short well hell no lets kill her.
  
  Reply
freedomactionnow

November 17, 2009 at 6:56 pm

“His argument? Men’s minds are clouded when an attractive woman speaks, no man can overcome that handicap. ”

I can think of another culture that believes in a very similar way.

I notice that a few commentors say that Palin is not a good speaker (“… until she opens her mouth. “). I don’t suppose anybody would care to give an example. Here’s her speech in Hong Kong:

Palin Speech

Anybody want to tear it apart?

Reply
Gary Morgan

November 17, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Thank you Ladyplumley, and everyone else who actually has had comments that were slightly more unheated than others. It’s too bad that some people in this country are feeding the hate and venom toward the so-called “other side”. Everyone in the United States, including Congress, would be better off if we all constantly realized that we are all Americans first, and Democrats, Republicans, or part of some other political organization second. There is way too much hatred in the world, talk radio and, yes, Fox News. Can’t we all agree that we each have the right to disagree without going overboard. The great thing is that this is a Free Country where we can exercise the right to Free Speech. But, let’s remember, we are all in this life together. I’m just saying. But, really, it’s been a pleasure to read all of the comments from everybody. What A Country!

Reply
1. Robert Elmore
  
  November 17, 2009 at 7:25 pm
  
  No because the left wing of the countyr is tring to take away my rights as well the rights of millions of people that feel the same way. Cap and job killer united heath care do the math Gary 1 plus trillion dollars of tax payer money to insure 11 million people man I can not do that math. The left wants to pass cap and trade. Charge companies more money to do buss. how about the 3% income tax increase next year when the Bush tax cuts expires yes Gary the 3% tax cut EVERY WORKING American gets gone up in green smoke that is about 5 thaousand dollars a year to my family. The fast food tax. The soda tax. What else man. Our country is losing jobs because our Gov. Taxes them to death so they move over seas and the union blood sucker. The union bosses get rich of dues and the worker get laid off. Wake up man if Obama and the left have thier way this once great country will fail to be as we know it. Look at the drop in the dollar that was on Obamas watch. Chris Dodd is the main reason for the house problem. Feddy and fanny and american credit greed. people beating the welfare system and I am not talking about folks that truly need help how about king crab legs and T bone steaks and lamb chops on food stamps they eat better than I do. People cheat the system and it is all the left. So damn right the Right is against the left and in time they will ( on the left pay the price)
  
  Reply
Newsweek’s Sexy Cover makes Sarah Palin Blush. « Savory Dish

November 17, 2009 at 7:03 pm

[…] Here’s one discussion in progress. Posted by savorydish Filed in Media, Politics ·Tags: Newsweek Cover, Running Shorts, Sarah Palin, Sexism, Susan Boyle Leave a Comment » […]

Reply
Stacey

November 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm

How offensive that so many people (on both sides) see this photo as somehow sexual. She is wearing running shorts, not a bikini. The photo shows the multi-tasking Palin, and includes an allusion to fitness, just as photos are available of Obama in basketball shoes.
Cokie Roberts is off base calling it sexist, as are those criticizing Ms. Palin for utilizing sex appeal.
It seems women are objectified and sexualized by friend and foe alike.

Reply
Chris McElwee

November 17, 2009 at 7:36 pm

I am a subscriber to RW so I saw the one page interview with Sarah and it was just about you know… running.

Even if I had not seen that interview I think this cover is really odd. The only time I read newsweek is at the docs or waiting for a haircut. So not very often.

I would wonder who is supposed to think Sarah is a problem? Obviously it is Democrats, but wait there is an american flag on the chair. Is she a problem for America? That could be the message or one of the messages NW is trying to get out there. Certainly it is a meme repeated elsewhere.

The picture seems out of context. And that was clearly done on purpose. That alone says something. Political leaders don’t normally pose in short shorts, especially one time VP candidates for covers of News Magazines. While we know she did not, most people looking at this magazine will think she did. And they will think how wierd, stupid, lame etc… Nobody with with sense would do such a thing. (Which causes me to wonder why her people ever allowed a pic for a running mag to be used for anything else.)

Newsweek has access to thousands of shots of this person. They chose this one for a reason. It was calculated to send a message. No matter how you feel about her, I am surprised more of the women commentors are not more offended.

Reply
jen

November 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Rhetoric and politics aside, the woman is hot! She’s got a great body, great legs and clearly takes care of herself. She earned her body through hard work and I would bet a pretty penny she did not spend a dime on improving herself, except for good make-up, a dye-job and a gym membership.
For any woman to be offended is beyond me. So many women today spend most their time doing everything for everyone else, trying to succeed and get ahead. They go into debt for plastic surgery, botox, and whatever the hell else is out there This woman takes the time for herself to stay healthy. To do the hard work and not just shovel out the dough to look good. Good for you, Sarah!!! So many woman could benefit from being more well-rounded and take the time for themselves!!!

The only person who has a right to be offended is SP as this photograph came as a surprise to her and was published in the inappropriate context.

Reply
pak

November 18, 2009 at 1:23 am

I hate to ask, but how is this sexist?

While I think they trying to trivialize her, I think it did the opposite – it shows that she is NOT a normal politician.

Some may love her (for good and bad reasons) and some may hate her (for both good and bad reasons), but you have to admit – old guy fuddy duddy politician she is not.

So, depending upon the thought of the authors, this is shoddy or brilliant journalism.

Sadly, many will view her picture (and all these posts) through the lenses of political idolatry – which is perhaps one of the greatest travesties of our governmental systems.

~ P

Reply
RickM

November 18, 2009 at 1:30 am

They Obama people fear her. She is the only one who stands a chance of beating their boss in 2012 by reuniting the GOP and they know it.

So she must be destroyed at all costs. No stunt is too low or sleazy. Luckily the press is their willing accomplice.

And so far its working…

Reply
Frank Thoughts

November 18, 2009 at 3:12 am

I think Palin represents a re-birth for America. I love her fresh style. Her energy and her chutzpah.

What is fascinating is the way the media portray her as retarded, unable to string sentences together, and a fake beauty. Yet, when you do the research on your own, it is a different story. She is a totally natural beauty and very fit. She is also comfortable making public speeches and is far more serious and focused than the media make out.

America is going to need somebody who is energetic and forward moving in the next years if it hopes to get out of this mess. And it also needs somebody who is tough and isn’t afraid of defending the national interest.

Reply
1. dan
  
  January 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm
  
  You are as big a moron as she is – she doesn’t know anything about international politics (but I guess living close to Russia counts in her mind) or the national interest. She’d rather use blatantly false statements to sway public opinion than talk about the real issues – she is a fearmonger and nothing more.
  
  You want someone with energy running the country? Vote for Richard Simmons.
  Chutzpah? Vote for Ellen or Oprah.
  Style? Vote for any pretty face from a magazine.
  
  Those aren’t qualifications for President.
  
  Reply
Michael

November 18, 2009 at 3:53 am

I think the choice of the photo came down plainly to the fact it would probably sell or be a cause for discussion. This means money for the publisher. Seems simple really, you choose the most ‘engaging’ cover you can.

Their choice seems to have done it’s job.

Reply
the best of the sarah palin comments « signs of life

November 18, 2009 at 5:03 am

[…] had perhaps the most helpful perspective on whether the choice of photo for the cover was appropriate. Photographers have always tried to […]

Reply
Jerry

November 18, 2009 at 5:08 am

Stepping down can be a good thing. I was on a home owners board (I know it’s not like being a head of state) and became discouraged by the lack of action on items crucial to the benefit of our community and the other jerks (Im including myself) running the show. I started a newsletter to try to provide some transparency for the community. I criticized board and individual board members for not doing their jobs and ended up getting more done by waking up our community as to what was going on. So go Sarah. On top of that she is much more attractive than Michelle.

Reply
nelsonleith

November 18, 2009 at 5:30 am

What the heck does “just a chick in shorts” mean? Talk about subtextual sexism ironically posing as an attack on sexism. Look around the campus of any rigorously academic institution during warm weather and what you’ll see are multitudes of chicks (and dudes) in shorts.

Once again, the self-styled champions of liberation reveal themselves as simply an alternative form of suppression. There’s no mutually exclusive relationship between personality, intellect, athleticism, and attractiveness. Enough of this archaic jocks vs. nerds stupidity.

Reply
Wally

November 18, 2009 at 5:52 am

Obviously the freaks at Newsweek are scared of a person like Sarah. She appeals to many Americans and that threatens the Liberal media.
Go Sarah!

Reply
Frank Thoughts

November 18, 2009 at 5:55 am

By attacking her for wearing shorts (something I also wear when I go jogging because it kind of makes sense), they are just showing themselves up for being a bunch of old-fashioned prudes, not liberal thinkers. I suspect Voltaire would have really dug Sarah in shorts; and I am pretty sure so would have Karl Marx.

I can really relate to her because she seems modern and lively. And yes, a bit like the women I went to university with. Most of whom are now very successful professionals and kind of doing what liberated women should be doing: living life and prospering.

Reply
1. Steven Harris
  
  November 18, 2009 at 6:13 am
  
  Marx wouldn’t have fancied Palin, he was devoted to his wife. Engels, on the other hand…
  
  Reply
Joe Parrish

November 18, 2009 at 7:01 am

You don’t have to solve a problem like Sarah. She IS NOT THE PROBLEM! The problem is the LEFT stream media that has a love fest with the Democratic political machine and will try to demonize any American that does not share or advocate their twisted views. This women is a REAL person, not the phony IVY league politicians with their anti family, anti Christian religion and lately anti American views. She believes in and LOVES her country, not like our current president who bows and ass kisses every other foreign leaders. The left is afraid of Sarah Palin, because she reflects real American values. When the rest of America wakes up and see the fraud perpetuated on the great nation by the media, more REAL Americans like Sarah will step forward. This country has had it’s glorious and not so glorious defining moments, but we have nothing to apologize for to the world. I for one would rather see Sarah Palin is shorts than Obama bowing and cowering to the world.

Reply
aguspranoto

November 18, 2009 at 8:14 am

great body
visit—>http://www.architecture-consultants.com

Reply
Jean Simon

November 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm

“Go ahead and call me a racist rednck because that
is what you do when you disagree with someone.
I don’t care. My grand daughter is half Hispanic,
my girlfriend is Hispanic and I live in a neighborhood
that is 70% African American. My friends and
neighbors know that they can count on me for
help both finacially and emotionally, but I
am not and never will be an ENABLER like the
phoney limosene liberal types that live
in freakin’ “Milqutoast” Land like you Jean!!!!!”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ah, the dilemma, to respond, or not. If not, I am really a Milquetoast. If I do, then the diatribe continues, but at least I’m not a Milquetoast (or a Wimpy, etc.). Damned if I do, or don’t, so I might as well respond.

Please note, I have not called anyone anything in my posts, nor will I. However you “read” me, you do so from your own perspective, imbuing my words with your content. I simply made an argument, a logical one, that you can’t call women ugly and mean when you don’t agree with them, and then defend a woman who is in the public sphere constantly, by her own volition, I might add, while she makes questionable choices that put herself, and by extension her family, in the limelight and under scrutiny. I am not a big fan of that scrutiny, but it is undeniable that, in our country, if you enter the public or political arena, you had better brace yourself for a no holds barred, full contact sport in which everything you do is “in bounds.” It is the law of the land and applies to all sides of the equation. No one is immune or exempt, as many on the left and right have found out, much to their dismay, and despite their lame excuses. Furthermore, the gloves off approach is not a new, or leftist, invention. Our present day media is delicate compared to the original pamphleteers.

However, a basic problem with Palin is that she consistently makes choices to put herself out there, and then recoils from the turbulence her presence and her choices create, claiming that people (the left, and the Republicans, for that matter) are being unfair to her. She will never survive politically until she comes to terms with the very real fact that there is no “fair” in political public relations. Anything she says, does, tweets, facebooks, is fair game, pardon the pun. She will either get savvy to it, roll with the punches and stop complaining, or she will have to find another game.

So there you have it, the non-milquetoast opinion of a decidedly non-enabling, 100% public educated, non bi-coastal, working mom who is an inhabitant of a potato producing, flyover state. Oh dear, there go the cliches.

Reply