It showed a picture she posed for. That is bad.
Her looks are one of her greatest assets. They were doing her a favor.
Exactly. It was an interview, not necessarily self promotion. Don’t you understand the difference?
First, the picture doesn’t show Palin doing dumb, goofy things, so you need to explain how you come to this particular perception.
Second, there are plenty of Palin male equivalents; the problem is that she’s criticised because of hazy notions of her being a sexual temptress while men are castigated differently. And this is why it’s sexist. Bush was called an idiot, a puppet, and a charming buffoon. Palin is the female version of Bush so there’s really no reason for her not to be criticised in the same manner, leaving gender and sex out of it. They both say stupid things. They both use folksy affectations to pander to their audience. They both have been used in a calculating manner by people smarter than them. They are peas in a pod, but you’d never think that judging by the reactions she engenders.
Newsweek? They took the lazy way out. It was a cheap shot that was not even clever.
Youw/the face,
With all due, Google “Arnold + beefcake” and/or “Arnold + meathead” and then come back and tell us that “men are castigated differently.”
ETA: I think this whole charade is all soooo blown out of proportion it’s ridiculous. It’s like watching “The Return Of The Zombie Quakers.”
I have, in this very thread - the asinine props, the stupid, beauty-pageant grin, etc… Palin looks like a buffoon. A hot one, sure.
Who are these male Palin equivalents?
Except that Palin is the very one not leaving her sex and gender out of it. That’s why Bush isn’t a Palin equivalent: he didn’t use sex to market himself like Palin is. There’s a reason that this same cover couldn’t be done about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Bachman.
So what? People aren’t getting mad because it isn’t clever; people are complaining that it’s sexist.
For her, there is absolutely no difference because the only interviews she does are for self-promotion.
This is exactly right. Palin is the only who who keeps constantly bringing up her gender as a means to deflect criticism. I thought conservatives were supposed to abhor identity politics, but this woman is the champion of it.
By contrast, Obama NEVER plays the race card, no matter how blatantly, unambiguously racist the attacks on him sometimes become. I never see calling himself a victim either, no matter how vicious and absurd the assault from the right wing media becomes.
That’s the crux of the debate: Explain how she uses sex to market herself. No one in this thread has been able to back up this rather strong assertion.
I’ll even be generous and let you claim the Runner’s World pic as evidence (ignoring the fact that Patterson did the same thing, as well as Bush, as well as a few other politicians who haven’t been accused of using sex to get ahead). But only on the condition that we both agree that one picture (which would only be considered provocative in a nation where women are forced to wear burkas, I might add) is not enough to bolster your case. Multiple data points are requested, please.
The flirting during the debates.
Explain how she was flirting,* please.*
Really? What was the interview about?
And Abraham Lincoln didn’t die in vain; he died in Washington, D.C.
Well then, since we are not that kind of a nation, Newsweek could not be expected to anticipate that people would regard the photo as provocative, correct? (I happen to agree with you on this - the photo isn’t provocative. Then again, I also don’t think that Sarah Palin is attractive, unless the population she is being compared with is just other female politicians ((No offense, Mrs. Albright).)
So, given that the photo isn’t provocative and we don’t live in a burka wearing nation, whence the controversy?
I don’t know. And neither to do you. So saying it’s about self-promotion is a baseless assumption.
Wait, you just said it was an interview, not self-promotion! Here, I’ll quote you:
Now you’re saying you don’t know what it was? Which is it?
Here’s a clue by four, and I’m being repetitive, I know. It doesn’t matter what it was. It illustrates the point, even if she’s talking about a non-smoking campaign in Walla Walla. The photograph conveys the message “Sarah Palin is doing interviews.”
You are retarded, aren’t you. The photo is very likely from an interview, defined as a person with a camera asking questions about a subject. The subject of that interview is unknown. If the interview is about her upcoming book, it would be self promotion and fit with the article. If the interview is by the local news about the new snow plowing program, it’s not self promotion.
Yes, but before you claimed it was about self-promotion, which is different. (At least for us non-retarded folk.)
What do you think is being communicated by Newsweek in their display of Palin in running shorts?
Before you answer that, consider this thought experiment. JFK Jr. was quite the hottie before his death and some even considered him an empty-suit who skated by on his pedigree and handsome looks. But would a magazine critical of him had had much much success in conveying their criticism simply by showing a pic of him like the one on the left here as a stand alone? Doubt it. Probably would backfire because his attractiveness was generally seen as a positive thing, not a negative.
The message I get from Newsweek’s use of the cover is that Palin’s attractiveness is grounds for dismissing her credibility. I’d get the same impression if I saw that pic of JFK Jr. used in the same manner (which would be highly unlikely given his male status…which is where the sexism comes into play.) It’s not her lack of intelligence and her polarizing views that I’m compelled to pay attention to, but the fact that she has nice legs and she poses like a pageant queen. These are things I could care less about and IMO, so should everyone else (fans and detractors, both).
I get this impression specifically because the picture isn’t ridiculous enough for political satire, so we’re left to conclude that the most obvious thing (her attractiveness) is the punchline.
Here’s exactly what I said about the picture
I described the content, and said it is “in accord with” the text about her doing self-promotional activities. Since I actually do have an IQ that is greater than 70, I know what “in accord with” actually means. Apparently you do not.
See, again the point that eludes you is not what she was actually doing on that day. It is what the image conveys and whether it is consistent with the text. In this case, the cover photo, the interior photo and the text are all consistent, or in accord with, one another.
It’s okay, though. We all have a role to fill, no matter what our own skills or limitations might be. You’ll find yours, too.
I’ve explained exactly what is being conveyed by Newsweek, in painstaking detials. You skipped over all of that explanation because you got your shorts in a twist.
The problem is that either the photo is provocative or it isn’t. Either we’re a burka wearing nation or we aren’t. Pick one, please.
Wait, what? Really? Holding a blackberry while wearing running attire and leaning on an American flag oddly draped over the back of a chair in a very stilted “pageant-like” pose isn’t ridiculous enough for political satire?
This. The difference is in the audience, and the assumption of the audience as being made up exclusively of straight males. If she gives you a boner, she must give everyone a boner and how dare she? Or, and I hate to bring US politics into it because there are so many issues at work without them, What about those stupid hicks who don’t care what she says and probably can’t even read but just see her and go ‘Duhh duhh she’s pretty, yeah I’ll vote for her’?
Self-promotion? Photo ops? Pandering? What have politicians come to?