When did she leave her husband? 
Must have been the same time when she showing all that cleavage of hers.
Why is it so hard for the Pailn defenders in this thread (even the reluctant you with the face) to see that the Runner’s World photo shoot and interview *is * relevant because Palin has not made herself available to any non-puff journalists other than Gibson and Curic. No press confereneces, no Sunday morning show appearances, no Q&A piece in Time magazine. And yet SHE AGREED TO BE INTERVIEWED BY FUCKING RUNNER’S WORLD MAGAZINE!
All comparison to other national politicians (prospective or otherwise), and how *they *would have been treated, is moot unless they have the same aversion to questions from the media.
If Newsweek had put a pic of Condi Rice in running gear on the cover with a headline like “Why Condi can’t perform as Sec of State”, it would be questionable (though I don’t think sexist) because it wasn’t like Condi only made herself availble for puff pieces in third rate non-political mags.
Really, this isn’t that hard to understand.
So there’s nothing to this?
Hmph, guess not. She still pulled the ripcord on her gubernatorial responsibilities.
That’s odd, because Cesario said…
… well, never mind.
Nope, not sexist at all. It is expressive of Newsweek’s view of Sarah Palin. We have to get used to this folks–magazines can no longer exist without putting their opinions on their covers. Remember the classic Economist cover of nearly a decade ago? A picture of then PM Benjamin Netanyahu with the caption “Serial Bumbler.” The Economist is not the most profitable and respected newsmagazine for no reason. And we can all think of others that were provocative but not offensive.
Palin posed for the picture in one context (for an article in a running magazine), but Newsweek used it in another. That’s fair game in the new journalistic world. As I take it they were trying to express their view that Palin would wrap herself in a flag even for a runner’s magazine, and that there are a certain percentage of Palin supporters who think her attractive. I’m not sure I agree with either, but I think that’s what the picture expresses, and so, it’s now journalism.
I don’t think it’s sexist, I think it reflects the editor’s views of some of what makes her popular.
I don’t think you could compare the two, though. Sarah Palin is presenting herself as a cute lil sexpot. She posed for Runners World. No one made her. If she took some private boudoir type photos for herself or her husband, not for the public’s consumption, and someone stole those and put those on Newsweek, I’d cry foul, too. Or if some paparazzi took some candids of her on the beach in a bikini. But she’s the one putting this forward. They’re commenting on the fact that she herself milks the hell out of the brainless bimbo role.
This thread is proof that this is a highly subjective opinion that is based more on poorly articulated feelings than any concrete details. It could very well be the case that Palin is using her looks to get ahead, but if that accusation can’t be supported with evidence that holds up under scrunity, then it’s best to focus on something else.
Like the other 101 things wrong with Palin.
Let’s look at a very plausible way the decision to pose for RUNNER’S WORLD happened:
Sarah: “Garsh, Todd, here’s an offer from this running magazine to do an interview with them.”
Todd: “Well, that’s harmless, ain’t it? Yuh ain’t gonna be asked any of them nasty gotcha questions bout what yuh read and all that tricky inalec-shull BS, right? Go fer it, babe.”
S: “Wal, it says right here they want me to pose for pix.”
T: “Ain’t that good? You look hawt, babe. That can only help ya.”
S: “Yabbut, they want me to pose in this skimpy little running outfit. I think they want me to show skin.”
T: “Hey, as long as they ain’t photographing my favorite inch of pink real estate, darlin’, I’m all for it.”
S: “Ya think?”
T: “Definitely. All them voters who’ll never get a sniff of a fi-i-ine piece of poontang like you? They eat that shit up, with a spoon, and beg for more. I bet that Lowry guy from that National Review will shoot a load just on hearing the news that you’ll prance around in a sexy outfit. Hell, I’m getting pretty hot myself, just talking about it. Come here, darlin’”
S: “Oh, honey, not now. I’ve got to answer these RUNNER’S WORLD people.”
T: “You can multitask, baby–answer them while I do this.”
S: “Oh, Toddy, Toddy, please. I got to --oh, garsh, please stop that. Oh, ohh. ‘Dear RUNNER’S WORLD, Okay, send a photo team up to my office asap…’ Todd, that’s so distracting, that’s so…ohhhhh, Todd…oh, please don’t stop…”
While I was looking into the claim that she was filing for divorce, I happened upon an excerpt of Goin’ Rouge, or whatever it’s called, in which she described sitting on a patio while Todd walked around shirtless, blue eyes a-glintin’, and thought, “yeah, like I’d divorce that body” or something along those lines.
Made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Actually, a lot. And not just in my mouth. My laptop is ruined.
The quote I heard was something like, “Divorce Todd? Have you SEEN Todd?”
Uh, yeah. And if I were a woman, I’d divorce the lout so fast his penis would spin off.
If you could read and comprehend what’s being said by anyone but yourself, you’d realize that that’s exactly my point: what makes her dangerous, according to the article, is **not **that she’s populist, but that she’s a polarizing extremist. I. FUCKING E., YOU RETARD, **if **she were a populist moderate, she wouldn’t be in the article, I. FUCKING E., her **politics **are the reason she’s in the article, I. FUCKING E., a photo that belittles her for sexualizing her image **has nothing to do with **why the article contends she is dangerous.
I’m fucking done here. You people fucking disgust me. Have fun in your magical world where you can’t possibly be sexist because you’re not currently raping a woman.
Wow. I think you’re taking random Internet debate a little too seriously. You should do something about that before it affects your health.
It’s “random Internet debate” that’s revealing some very, IMO, fucked-up opinions about what sexism is. Including from some posters from whom I expected a lot fucking better. And it makes me angry as hell and depresses the shit out of me, because it shows how fucking far we have to go before people can actually be treated as people, even in this “advanced” country.
I’m unsubscribing from the thread before I have a goddamn aneurysm. Seriously. If anybody else replies to me, I won’t be able to see it, so if you have anything that you’ve really gotta say, send it in a PM.
Wow. So not only do you lack the ability to read and understand the article properly, but you lack any sort of emotional regulation skills. It’s a darn shame that you’re quitting the thread.
You’re still getting it wrong, by the way. She is a populist, albeit a far-right populist. The photo remains perfectly fine as a succinct encapsulation.
Also, I’m not sure that i.e. means what you think it means, but I suppose that isn’t important right now.
Can’t argue with that.
Not that you’ll see this, but that’s not what it’s revealing. It’s IS revealing just how limiting a medium internet fora are. I’m certain in a face to face conversation, intent, nuance, and rapid clarification would have a different outcome.
But I could be wrong. Often am.