jerseyhoya wrote:Also I love the concept of Palinistas taking over the congressional GOP. If you told John Boehner or Eric Cantor or Mitch McConnell they were Palinistas, they'd beat you to death with a tire iron.

jerseyhoya wrote:If you guys aren't afraid of John Boehner wielding a tire iron, I don't know what to say. He'd have a cigarette in one hand, his whiskey neat sitting within arms reach, and would smash in your temple in a hurry so as not to miss his next tanning appointment.

jerseyhoya wrote:

I mean, I pretty much hate her and had a serious discussion tonight about whether I would vote for her or Obama if no viable third party candidate emerged...but wtf is Newsweek doing with this cover?

gpicaro wrote:CNN:

Palin took aim at Newsweek's eye-catching cover this week that shows the former vice presidential candidate in her running outfit - an image that was apparently lifted from a Runner's World photo shoot months ago. Writing on her Facebook page Monday night, Palin said the depiction is flat out "sexist, and oh-so-expected."

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this 'news' magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant," Palin wrote. "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist, and oh-so-expected by now."

"If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context," Palin also said.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I mean, I pretty much hate her and had a serious discussion tonight about whether I would vote for her or Obama if no viable third party candidate emerged...but wtf is Newsweek doing with this cover?

I agree its a strange cover for Newsweek, but don't see her complaint. This is not some candid shot grabbed by a paparazi or something photoshopped. It looks like something she very carefully posed for, so it is obviously a photo she wanted to have out there. Probably not in this setting, but a planned Palin PR photo.

Three hours after Sarah Palin's interview on Oprah finished, Lou Dobbs was interviewed on Fox News. While both are called "populists," their appearances could not have been more different.

Palin spoke about the usual: complained about mistreatment by McCain staffers and the media, engaged in a spat with her almost-son-in-law, and defended herself all the way. She was retrospective, backbiting, and virtually silent about the trouble millions face during the worst economy in a lifetime. Dobbs could have come off the same way during his chat with Bill O'Reilly: slam his ex-boss, blame the media, say he did no wrong, and rip the president as a mortal threat to freedom in America as Palin has done everywhere but Oprah.

Instead, he was the anti-Palin. Dobbs did not complain about the way he was treated by CNN, saying it didn't force him out and its executives treated him well. He barely griped about his usual targets: immigration groups and The New York Times. Dobbs even said he was partially to blame for CNN's low ratings; Palin said she wasn't why McCain lost the election. Finally, Dobbs said Barack Obama is "not the devil," but a man whose policy choices are difficult to understand.

Palin and Dobbs said they want to be on the national scene going forward, and that probably means politics, either as commentators or as candidates. From the looks of an admittedly short interview, Dobbs could make for a potent candidate. The message he sent could be encapsulated as, "This is not about me, don't worry about me. This is about you who are ignored by the the media, the parties, and the government--all of whom sold the middle class down the river." Palin's message has been constant self-defense, few policy prescriptions, and little focus on the problems of Joe the Plumbers. With more than 15 million Americans out of work, the bailout regime mostly intact, and few new jobs to show for billions spent to stimulate the economy, which message has greater resonance?

allentown wrote:I agree its a strange cover for Newsweek, but don't see her complaint. This is not some candid shot grabbed by a paparazi or something photoshopped. It looks like something she very carefully posed for, so it is obviously a photo she wanted to have out there. Probably not in this setting, but a planned Palin PR photo.

Squire wrote:

allentown wrote:I agree its a strange cover for Newsweek, but don't see her complaint. This is not some candid shot grabbed by a paparazi or something photoshopped. It looks like something she very carefully posed for, so it is obviously a photo she wanted to have out there. Probably not in this setting, but a planned Palin PR photo.

It strikes me its about context. When you pose for Runner's World its one thing but when its put on the cover of a news magazine its different. It seems to me as pretty much exactly the same issue as it being OK for Barack Obama to be allowed to use his middle name but no political opponent being allowed to refer to it.

Look. Palin's a joke but I think she's right about this. In any event she's a lightning rod for the Republican party which will likely cause some to spend less time going after actually viable candidates.

SQUIRE

Trent Steele wrote:

gpicaro wrote:CNN:

Palin took aim at Newsweek's eye-catching cover this week that shows the former vice presidential candidate in her running outfit - an image that was apparently lifted from a Runner's World photo shoot months ago. Writing on her Facebook page Monday night, Palin said the depiction is flat out "sexist, and oh-so-expected."

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this 'news' magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant," Palin wrote. "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist, and oh-so-expected by now."

"If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context," Palin also said.

I guess. On the other hand, if you're going to voluntarily pose for a photo in pair of running shorts for the sole purpose of showing off your sexy ass legs, I can't see how you can be upset when that image is used later. It's silly to pretend that: (1) Palin's appeal isn't a little bit due to her MILFy attractiveness; and (2) she doesn't utilize that to her advantage. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a sword/shield sorta thing going on here. Can't really have it both ways.

Squire wrote:It strikes me its about context. When you pose for Runner's World its one thing but when its put on the cover of a news magazine its different. It seems to me as pretty much exactly the same issue as it being OK for Barack Obama to be allowed to use his middle name but no political opponent being allowed to refer to it.

jerseyhoya wrote:Despite that bit that dajafi posted, and I think there's something to it as well, I think most of Palin's appeal comes from people who like her because the media elite and political elite don't like her. Maybe the looks get her in the door or something like that, but they stay for the generic conservative sound bites and because they feel like she's been unfairly attacked. Magazine covers like this will only fortify the 1/3 of the country that really likes her in their resolve that the media is out to get their girl.

dajafi wrote:

Squire wrote:It strikes me its about context. When you pose for Runner's World its one thing but when its put on the cover of a news magazine its different. It seems to me as pretty much exactly the same issue as it being OK for Barack Obama to be allowed to use his middle name but no political opponent being allowed to refer to it.

I see what you're saying about the Newsweek cover--and to me it's potentially a rights issue (Are Newsweek and Runners World owned by the same parent corporation? Did RW take money for allowing Newsweek to use the image?). Confused about the point on Obama's name, though. Who's not "allowed" to say his middle name? Are you suggesting it's unfair to point out that when Glenn Beck, or Palin herself for that matter, intones "Barack Hussein Obama," with a spoken emphasis on a middle name that Americans (through no fault of Obama's) came to associate with evil, there might be some non-policy purpose?

It's fine for his political opponents to do that, and fine to point out the pointless and vacuity of what they're doing.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Despite that bit that dajafi posted, and I think there's something to it as well, I think most of Palin's appeal comes from people who like her because the media elite and political elite don't like her. Maybe the looks get her in the door or something like that, but they stay for the generic conservative sound bites and because they feel like she's been unfairly attacked. Magazine covers like this will only fortify the 1/3 of the country that really likes her in their resolve that the media is out to get their girl.

No doubt. It's enemy-of-my-enemy stuff, spiced with a dash of damsel in distress. I read somewhere today that her approval remains considerably higher among men than women--another data point suggesting she remains more of a sex object than anything like a feminist hero.

Palin’s rated favorably by more men, 48 percent, than women, 39 percent

Harpua wrote:I'm not an expert in media usage law or whatever, but I wonder if you can just use the pic as long as you give credit (like citing a written source).

Squire wrote:I think Ms. Palin's supporters (of which I am not one) are just noting that the Newsweek cover shot was clearly selected (among other more professional photos of Ms. Palin) for a non-policy purpose and are pointing out the pointless and vacuity of what Newsweek is doing.