Newsweek Continues Its Tradition Of Bizarro Sarah Palin Covers
Posted by: Kate Torgovnick
Filed in:
news
10:10AM, Tuesday November 17th 2009
If you happened by a newsstand this morning, you no doubt saw the new issue of Newsweek featuring Sarah Palin on the cover. In the pic, Sarah stands in a beauty queen pose wearing a red sweatshirt and short shorts, her legs shiny and her hair perfectly coifed. My first thought looking at it was: Could she have really posed for this? I mean, she did don the red sweatshirt on her book cover. But, nope. Mystery solved. The image came from the August issue of Runner’s World magazine, where she posed for several images in jogging gear—some with Trigg, some without—and gave such deep quotes as, “It doesn’t matter your background, your demographics, your race, your political affiliation, [running is] such a uniting, healthy, fun, awesome activity. It cracks me up going to some running event and seeing some dude who campaigned so hard against me, or a lady who’s been blogging some mean comments about me. But we’re all there together.”
Sarah, of course, is thoroughly nonplussed with the cover. It doesn’t help that the cover line reads, “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah Palin? She’s Bad News For The GOP—And For Everybody Else, Too.” Wonder what she would have said about that on “Oprah” yesterday.
On Facebook, Sarah gave her take on the cover. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate,” she wrote. “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” For once, I have to agree with her.
And this, of course, is not nearly the first time Newsweek has run an unflattering Palin cover. Remember this gem from last year—Sarah in her hunting garb with a rifle slung over her shoulder? Eek. And then there was this extreme close-up, where the image is zoomed in so far that you can’t help but notice the bump on Sarah’s cheek. That cover line: “She’s One Of The Folks (And That’s The Problem).”
What do you think—is Newsweek justified in their Palin covers, or are they going overboard?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:14 am: [report]
I definitely think it trivializes her views and her accomplishments, and it’s sexist. I can’t stand Sarah Palin and even I can say that. Poking fun is one thing, but this takes it too far.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]
That top photo is soooooo photochopped. By now shes got cellulite and varicose veins up the ying yang.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]
Newsweek oversensationalize every topic they bother featuring on the cover. Pretty much everything she does is unflattering to her image, so how could coverage of anything she does flatter her, especially given that it’s a more liberal rag? Why they’re continuing to give her so much attention is the real issue I have with this.
slip
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:28 am: [report]
Agreed. Had Obama been defeated and had Newsweek run covers of him with equivalent stereotypical imagery, people would be baying for blood.
I’ll be curious to see where NOW comes down on this.
Slip
Riley
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:28 am: [report]
@PinkRanger - I agree.
Pretty amateur-ish. Just shows people that Newsweek, or others for that matter, cannot stick to issues pertinent to the argument. Personal attacks, photo misrepresentation (reminds me of tabloids) both serve to distract and discredit.
Nothing new to politics in general, but I’d rather news sources at least make a feigned attempt to be impartial. There are plenty of real issues regarding Palin that can be dissected. Just the media staying on the bandwagon.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:29 am: [report]
@joyy: I agree with your sentiments, but I don’t feel that women in politics should be approached in this way. This article in newsweek is about Sarah Palin the politician, not Sarah Palin the former beauty queen. They would never have a cover of Obama wearing short-shorts, or even with his shirt off.
cymbelene
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:32 am: [report]
She POSED for this photo. Her choice. Maybe it wasn’t for Newsweek, but is she really stupid enough (at this point) to believe that posing for “runners world” would just be posing for a running magazine? “um, i was just doing this sex tape for myself, I didn’t think it would end up on entertainment tonight”. It’s like she’s constantly shocked by the media, and yet she continues to push herself farther into it. It’s just like the article about the Oprah interview yesterday—she’s so into painting herself as some kind of media victim. Deal with it or get out, lady.
I, for one, would prefer she get out. I’m sick of looking at her mug and hearing her stupidity.
Riley
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]
@Cymbelene - I think you just won the award for most asinine comparison. Sex tape and runner’s magazine photo shoot, congratulations.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:41 am: [report]
@Pink - The difference is that Sarah Palin presents herself like this and uses her personal/family life as her politics. I also don’t see the uproar over the other covers. It’s par for the course for Newsweek as far as attention-getting covers go (that is the point of a cover, as I understand it), and I don’t think they’re unflattering - she looks very pretty in all of them and they all seem true to the image she’s been presenting to the world since we all jerked our necks around to the trainwreck that she is.
I can’t recall other women in politics having this done to them, so I have trouble looking at these and thinking “Newsweek, why so SEXIST?!” ... because other women in politics don’t present themselves like that to the public. Palin does. I don’t think the media should take on the burden of protecting her image from herself just because she is a woman.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:42 am: [report]
@cymbelene: I hear ya about her always claiming to be a victim, it is overblown considering some of her actions, but in this case I disagree.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:44 am: [report]
um she did beauty pageants. but now its not ok?
kind of like youre daughter getting pregnant, THEN deciding to promote abstinence… or getting pregnant, THEN getting married.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:44 am: [report]
@Joyy: Um, this was a running photo. A running photo. Why, oh why, did newsweek pick a running photo for a cover about her politics? Could it be because her thighs are showing? When is the last time you saw a MAN have his views trivialized by his sexuality on the cover of newsweek? That is why it is sexist.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:46 am: [report]
God, I don’t even like Sarah Palin, I"m just sick of one-sided media, and the treatment of women in politics.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:49 am: [report]
her views are being trivialized because shes a moron, not because shes a female moron…
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:51 am: [report]
@muchomacho: Seriously, I"m with you. So why not take examples of her statements and actions as proof that she is messing up the right? Why use this kind of imagery? Clearly there are other examples they could have pulled from if thats how you want to argue it.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:52 am: [report]
@Pink - what MuchoMacho said.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:52 am: [report]
@joyy: what I said.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:53 am: [report]
Also, I really just see this as them treating her the way she treats herself. And I do think that any other politician would get just as much crap if they were that stupid AND posing in leggy or topless (for the guys, hopefully!) photos.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:54 am: [report]
The idea here seems to be that if you disagree with someones views, it’s fine if they are disrespected and trivialized. I don’t want that to happen to me, so I don’t think it should happen to the other side either. That really is my biggest issue with my fellow liberals.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:58 am: [report]
@Pink stop reading so far into it. Bottom line is she wants people to take her seriously and she is a joke and all these photos prove it. If you think that all the Bedtime for Bonzo film clips werent played ad nauseum during the Reagan years you may be a little young to remember it. She put herself out there by accepting the nom then acted like a jerk. She should hvae gracioulsy lost and finished her term as Govenor and maybe actually tried to do some of the things she was promising during the campaign. Instead she quit and went on a book tour. J O K E whether it be male or female.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]
@Pink - I don’t think this will happen to you because you seem smart enough to not act in a way that would make an honest reflection of that unflattering.
I don’t think that they’re disrespecting her because it’s a liberal mag and she’s conservative, I think they’re making fun of her because her politics are a joke and she presents herself like the moron that she is. If she were liberal, I think she would get the same treatment (if not worse) - it would just be in other magazines/media circles.
Riley
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:19 am: [report]
@Joyy - So it is acceptable to misrepresent someone in a magazine because it is popular at the moment? How would people feel if it was a more-liked lady in the political limelight, say Clinton or Obama?
Sure, Palin brings a lot of things down on herself. I don’t think this is one of them and I definitely don’t agree with the ‘shopping of one’s image in an attempt to portray them in an unprofessional manner. If she really posed like this, in that setting, go ahead and print it until the world ends. I didn’t think it was ever acceptable to distort photos to make a point, i.e. Obama Joker Socialist poster. Sure, this isn’t as malicious as that but it is along the same vein of distortion in order to discredit.
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:22 am: [report]
My point wasn’t that all of this is happening because she is conservative, but all of you feel that it is justified because you’re liberal. We won the election. Woo-hoo, let’s get over it. My point has nothing to do with her politics. Read Riley’s last post.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:27 am: [report]
i dont think she was misrepresented. she actively dresses like a diva. she spent like $80k on her wardrobe during the presidential elections. if a woman is obsessed with her physical image, how is the above photo (kind of hot) misrepresentation?
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:29 am: [report]
and if hillary clinton dressed like that and posed for an article i would dislike her even more because she is ugly inside and outside.
powplz
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:33 am: [report]
@Riley/Pink - Sorry, but Palin as beauty queen as “misrepresentation” is a really, really tough sell for me since she pushes that image herself. I think I missed something along the way about the use of photoshopping in this instance being used to portray something that is false? I’d also have to say that if she’s discredited herself (which she has, over and over again), I also don’t buy that the image is the culprit. And if she’s being misrepresented in this picture, I’m just not seeing it. *shrug*
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:34 am: [report]
@muchomacho “hilary clinton….she is ugly inside and out”
“....the above photo (kind of hot)”
Does anyone else see how muchomacho just made my point about photos like that trivializing views with sexuality?
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]
Apink - so a hot woman cannot have her views taken seriously? thats interesting. i didnt make that connection, because i tend to take seriously other peoples views. palin being hot has nothing to do with my views on her politics. clinton is a dog, and i hate her politics too. ur reaching.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]
@Pink: THANK YOU! The point exactly. However, I do think it is partly b/c she’s conservative, but a conservative WOMAN. The majority of women in the media are Liberal and so they will defend treatment like this cover just b/c they don’t like her, whereas if it had been Hilary Clinton or something they’d be screaming FOUL at the top of their lungs!
@MuchoMacho: The PARTY spent that money on her, she did not spend it on herself. And, as all of this proves, physical image is important and the way women dress is important in campaigns, even if we don’t want it to be. How much time was spent talking about her wardrobe, hair, glasses, accessories, etc…? Even Clinton’s pantsuits. How often were we discussing McCain’s tie or Obama’s choice of shoe? But we sure spent (and still do spend) quite a bit of time on Michelle’s wardrobe. See the double standard there? Criticize Palin’s original wardrobe (as many pundits did) then criticize the fact that the party gave her a makeover.
Personally, I don’t love her but I don’t hate her either. Everyone who wants to call her an idiot, stupid, a diva, a bad parent, bad Governor, whatever, probably haven’t done any independent research into her life and experiences or record as Governor. You probably haven’t met her personally. You just trust in what the media has said about her, which IMO has been extremely one-sided and unfair. People are just waiting for her do so something or say something that either is bad on its face or that they can spin into something that looks bad. Again, mainly b/c she is a Conservative woman in the world of politics/media. There are plenty of actual, proven crazies in that category (think Ann Coulter) to go after without manufacturing more.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]
@jenn - so the media made up the fact that she quit being governor to go on a book tour?
PinkRanger
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]
@muchomacho: You’re putting words into my mouth dude. I didn’t say she shouldn’t be taken seriously because shes pretty, but female politicians are definitely judged on their outward appearance, as you so eloquently proved. Twice now.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:57 am: [report]
everyone judges people on their outward appearance. im not judging her politics on her outward appearance. and as i have noted (more than twice) i dont like the politics of either the hot one or the ugly one. so… are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? or do you just find injustice in everything? if newsweek said “pretty dolts opinion doesnt count” id see where you were coming from. her opinion is stupid. she is also pretty. how are we judging her unfairly?
equnsuocha
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:57 am: [report]
@Jenn so i assume you will be spending Christmas with the Palins then? Do you think you will be special enough to hold the good baby or just the “retard”
She brought this on herself HERE
And HERE
And one more for good measure HERE
She is a joke and will continue to be considered as such until she shuts her stupid mouth and starts acting like someone worthy of the White House. You can bet your sweet bippy if Obama/Biden lost you wouldnt have heard a peep from them outside of thier roles in Congress. They wouldnt have quit their jobs, they wouldnt have gone on a whirlwind book tour, they wouldnt have had a “rogue” baby daddy running around spilling secrets. If they did, they would be just as criticized as she is.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]
No, the media didn’t make that up, but the way its being spun makes it sound worse than the reality of the situation. Granted, her “farewell speech” was way off and didn’t help (Does she not have a speechwriter like everyone else?). But she had been so damaged by the campaign and subsequent attacks from opponents and the media that she wasn’t going to be able to effectively serve as Governor anymore. Popular politicians always make strong opponents (and she WAS popular there before the VP campaign), and she had plenty back home that took full advantage of her weakened state. She went from having 80-something approval to 40-something approval in a matter of months. She at least realized that she no longer had the capacity to govern and that the attacks would continue and be a distraction for the whole state.
And, yes…before you can get to it…she did make a ton of money off the book. But I don’t think there’s anyone on here, no matter how insignificant their lives are, who would turn down that kind of money to write a book about themselves, so don’t bash her for something you’d do in a heartbeat too. Besides, whether you like it or not she is only the 2nd female to ever be on a major party Presidential ticket, and that makes her historically noteworthy. Doesn’t mean she has anything of value to say or add to the national discourse, but she does have historical and political significance, period. So what she has to say needs to become part of the historical record for future generations to decide its usefulness.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]
you said we are trivializing her views because of her sexuality. and my point was the ugly chick and the hot chick are both bad politicians, imo, b/c of their politics. not their appearance. so i believe that would be the opposite of trivializing their views b/c of their sexuality. it would be understanding that their sexuality and politics are seperate things. which you cant seem to understand.
tabby
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 12:16 pm: [report]
I just think it is bad form to rip off another publications photos that were taken specifically for that other publication. There are literally millions of photos of this woman doing her (former) job, why not buy one of those photos for your cover? While I loathe her and her constant whining, Newsweek should have picked something better for their cover.
spatula
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 12:17 pm: [report]
I agree that women in politics shouldn’t be approached this way (at least if they wish to be taken seriously in said politics). BUT they would never be approached this way if they didn’t present themselves this way.There wouldn’t be an unprofessional and totally article-irrelevant leg shot for Newsweek to even use, if she didn’t pose for it and sign the release form. Especially given Palin’s past experience with the media, you’d think she would be more thoughtful about such things. She had to know that would come back and bite her in the as*. THe phrase “walked right into that one” comes to mind.
Oreo
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]
Don’t you have to actually accomplish something in order for someone to trivialize it?
Seriously, the criticisms directed at her have nothing whatsoever to do with her gender. She is being judged by the content of her character and her lack of intellect. You’ll note that no one questions the intelligence of Hillary Clinton, and she has never been so undignified as to hide behind the gender card to respond to critics.
xifeng882
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:23 pm: [report]
@Oreo: The woman has clearly done a lot in the past few years. I can’t say I agree with her at all or even remotely like her, but she’s definitely accomplished. And they are definitely using her gender as a weapon against her. They used it against Hillary too, during the primarys pundits used to attack her for having a “nagging” type voice. Clinton just has more class than Palin.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]
@MuchoMacho: I think @Pink’s point is that in every post you weren’t able to discuss either female politician without some reference to her looks, hot or ugly.
@equnsuocha: Thanks for the childish response. Of course I’m not spending Christmas from them, but then you direct me to 2 articles that have major spin and a picture of her from her pageant. OK? That proves what? That she was once in beauty pageants? (Still don’t understand why we demean her for that—just more of the double standards for women.) And the 2 articles??? Proves to me that the media still likes to spin stories against her. I could go item by item on the “fact check,” but I won’t. One glaring example is the statement that the majority of her donations came from PAC’s giving $500 or more. Well, one of the MAJOR FUNCTIONS of PAC’s is bundling, whereby they collect multiple small donations from members and “bundle” them to a campaign. There are tax reasons for this, as well as the fact that alot of fund raising is simply done that way, not just in politics. When my nephew sells cookies for school, do you think he turns over each “donation” individually, or does he get credit for “raising” or selling $200 worth of cookies? Further, quite a bit of what those articles (and yourself) cite came from sources like Levi Johnston. Fine if you don’t want to believe Palin, but you really believe him, either?
@spatula: The picture was relevant to the article for which it was taken. Why is she getting blamed for someone else taking it out of context?
And you can like or dislike her political positions, but that has very little to do with the fact that a subversively sexual picture was used out of context on the cover of a NEWS MAGAZINE for a NEWS STORY about her. Now, you can argue that she has put herself out there in a sexual manner (which I don’t agree) but all of you who just disagree with her politics or think she’s stupid and call it fair game? Not following the reasoning there…...
equnsuocha
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]
@xifeng Quitting your job, getting published and losing and election doesnt equal accomplishment
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
@Oreo: Hilary has been attacked for her gender, just not in the same way. What about all the jokes about her being butch, or secretly a lesbian? There are jokes about her being ugly/unattractive/asexual. There are comments on her (lack of) style and monochromatic pantsuit/shirt combos. Remember when Bill Clinton was first elected? Her hair and those headbands were such a big deal. Or just the general, widely-held belief that she’s a ball-busting bitch? Is that not directly, unquestionably related to her gender? If not, please tell me how.
bumbler
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:32 pm: [report]
Raise your hand if you think they will use this shot when discussing Gov. Patterson. http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/patterson_shorts.jpg
Also from a Runner’s World photo shoot.
xifeng882
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:32 pm: [report]
@equnsuocha: haha true, but she was elected governor, she was chosen to be a vice presidential candidate and she did get published. I think those are accomplishments, even if it really shouldn’t have ever happened.
xifeng882
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
@bumbler: That picture is terrifying lol.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
@equnsuocha: Its obvious you just don’t like her, so this is probably pointless, but she has accomplished quite alot in her life. Besides being a wife and mother for a large family and running a business with her husband she did hold city office, was Mayor and Governor. She also was on a major party Presidential ticket (win OR lose). And as I mentioned before, being only the 2nd woman to do that, that’s a big deal.
I don’t hear anyone on here saying Geraldine Ferraro should just go back to where she came from and shut up because she lost her VP bid, and that proves she’s an ignorant whore. She even wrote a book too!! *gasp** If you remember, Ferraro actually stood up for Palin during the election (despite agreeing with her on practically nothing politically) and was ostracized from the Democrats for doing so.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:36 pm: [report]
then she should have said that. she tried to tie that into me trivializing her politics, which were two unrelated points. you also didnt find a ton of john mccain stories that didnt reference his age, or obama stories that didnt mention he was black. appearance is commented on often. big deal.
the fact that she was in beauty pageants and the fact that her appearance is often a big part of her news stories doesnt correlate to you at all? her appearance matters to her, so why cant the rest of us comment on it? that was what my $80k wardrobe comment was about. i dont care that the party funded it. im sure the dems funded a hefty wardrobe for Ms Obama. but $80k seems excessive, and further highlights the fact that she is concerned about her appearance.
how dare you assume that the running apparel she wears for exorcise was subversively sexual… you are TRIVIALIZING everything this woman has accomplished. maybe newsweek was trying to point out how active and healthy she is?
hypocrite.
Rhena
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]
There have been a lot of photos of Obama shirtless in swimming trunks and shirtless playing basketball. Obama Girl made sure of that. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Palin ran on her beauty queen “fame”. That she would write a book to blame McCain for her failures is just a whiny little girl who shouldn’t be in politics. John McCain would have won had he not been given her as a running mate. I really don’t think that was his choice, he has better sense than to do that.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
I still don’t see how her being in beauty pageants 20+ years ago proves ANYTHING? I have not seen or heard her say anything that clearly indicates that she wants to be known because of her looks and sexuality, rather than her thoughts and ideas. Just because she happens to be attractive and take care of herself and dress well doesn’t mean that she wants to be known only for her looks. YES, she was competing in pageants based on her looks—AGAIN 20+ YEARS AGO. Did you think anything was really important 20 years ago that you don’t anymore? I remember I thought my Barbies were the most important thing back then but if you pulled one of their heads off today I probably wouldn’t care.
The fact that you keep pointing to the fact that she was in the pageants and pays attention to her looks is case-in-point the argument that its a double standard. Yes, people talked about McCain being old. That’s not subjective. People talked about Obama being black. Also not subjective. Looks? Subjective. But no one said, “Wow, Obama has on a nice new suit. Wonder how much he paid for that? $4000? Oh wow, that’s alot…he really cares about his looks more than anything else. It looks like he shaved this morning, too…oh, my goodness!!”
Lbeyerstein
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 06:29 pm: [report]
Sarah Palin posed for that Runner’s World spread while she was still governor. It wasn’t just some story about Sarah Palin’s running hobby. It was a carefully posed, heavily produced picture of Sarah Palin, Sexxy Governor. Notice how she’s clutching a Blackberry and leaning towards a flag.
It’s a bizarro image, but the point is: She chose to present herself this way. It’s a perfect example of why she’s a problem for the GOP. Because WHO DOES THIS?
So the choice of cover image was perfectly appropriate. If Newsweek had photoshopped this image or dredged it up from her time in private life or something, I would call it sexist. Now, it’s just truthful. She was actively working the MILF/GILF pinup shtick in public office. Make of that what you will.
landesign
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 08:15 pm: [report]
I think it’s embarassing that the media goes to such
extent to make her look foolish. I mean, is the glass ceiling only to be broken by women with a certain viewpoint?
I think she expressed the views of many people in our
country. So she has another opinion, big deal.
And when I read posts where she is called all sorts of
derogatory names, I just skip that post and go onto the next.
ChoJinn
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:59 pm: [report]
No surprise here. Its coverage of the last election was embarrassingly biased, and its recent decision to become just another talking-head outlet means it needs to dredge the bottom to compete with MSNBC and FOX. I find the amount of (negative) attention she receives for not-really-doing-much amazing.
Bee Mee
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:44 pm: [report]
“The idea here seems to be that if you disagree with someones views, it’s fine if they are disrespected and trivialized. I don’t want that to happen to me, so I don’t think it should happen to the other side either. That really is my biggest issue with my fellow liberals.”
This is exactly the ideology Sarah Palin herself embodies. Don’t like your opponent? Tell everyone he’s a terrorist and not a Real Pro American (TM). Wink and grin like a happy fool when people shout “Kill Him!” from the crowd at one of your rallies. Then tell everyone how proud you are of all your rally attendees. Accuse him of trying to murder your special needs baby by way of a death panel. Refer to a fellow female as the “perky one” with the “lowest ratings in primetime news” if she gives you enough rope to hang yourself on national tv. Accuse Hillary Clinton of whining. Mock “community organizers.”
I’m not going to get worked up because Sarah Palin is getting back the same kind of treatment she put out into the universe. She gets disrespected because she has been extremely disrespectful. Maybe one of these days, mid victimhood cry du jour, she remembers the vile things that came from her own mouth about anyone who didn’t sing her praises and believe exactly as she does. But I won’t hold my breath for the day Sarah Palin gains some self awareness.
Oreo
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 06:35 am: [report]
xifeng882: When this woman finishes just one of the jobs that she’s elected to do, then I’ll say she has accomplished something. Thus far, her biggest accomplishments seem to be the ability to quit your job, abandon the people that elected you and make money off of a failed run at the vice presidency.
triplem
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 08:09 am: [report]
I know a lot of female runners (I run once in a blue moon myself, but prefer biking) and neither I nor any one of them has ever headed out for the trail sporting a full face of industrial-grade makeup and hair sprayed to drape juuuuust soooooo into place around our lovely necks. Note as well the “classic pinup pose” affected by Ms. Palin.
She was using her sexuality to promote herself on the RW cover—a magazine that’s focused on fitness, not sex—so it’s a bit hypocritical of her to cry about how the Newsweek cover is “sexist” because it doesn’t focus on her politics.
That said, I think Newsweek’s point could have been made, perhaps better, with a different cover photo. But, hey, I bet they sell out that issue. ;