Sexism only exists for Republicans if it can be used to attack Sister Sarah’s enemies.

Other then that, it’s a myth that doesn’t exist.

I’m sure Amy Siskind will rush to the defense of Couric on the very basis of what you have so cogently identified here. /snark.

“We set up this interview on the day of the U.N. General Assembly, with a walk-and-talk in front of the U.N. It was never made as two working gals…. That was supposed to be to highlight her foreign policy savvy [in the context of] the U.N. General Assembly. The picture is in front of the U.N. to highlight her expertise and readiness to be Vice President—it wasn’t about two working gals.”

Gee, I wonder if there’s any way to check the newspapers of that period to confirm or deny this. 

I am sooooooo sick of this beeyotch.*

*Arguably sexist term defused by ironic phoneticization.

Look, we’re talking about the same bunch of schmucks who howled “Homophobe!” when people wouldn’t stop asking questions about Mark Foley’s texting habits.

It’s all a part of their magical thinking. They know certain words have power, they know the icky liberals don’t like certain words and they try so desperately to use them to banish their enemies. Hee-larious.

Added bonus: More whittering from the kitties about the real feminists in the GOP.

The question whether the Newsweek cover is sexist is an important one. The short answer, however, is no.

Palin posed the original photo as political commentary. She was governor and so desparate for publicicty that she agreed to an extensive (not one page, as she claims) photoshoot for Runner’s World. She staged that photo in her own home, wearing the outfit and in the pose of her choosing, and accompanied by the props she felt to be essential. She chose to be seen as “hot” (short shorts!) and fit (glistening legs!) and multitasking (two Blackberries) and patriotic (American flag draped over bar stool, in violation of all the rules about repspect for the flag but who cares!) and an object of patriotic sympathy (Blue Star flag [which travels around her house in various photo shoots] visible in the window right behind her!).

Palin then agreed that this photo would be the cover of Runner’s World.

So, the photo itself,  as Palin’s political commentary about how she sees herself, is the best illustration possible about “a problem like Sarah” because this photo which she staged illustrates so much that’s problematic about her as a politician and public figure.

But, but, but, Katy was so MEAN to her.  Wah.  And so nice to Biden and all the other guys. Wah. So really, how can Sarah not piss and moan?  I must have seen a completely different interview, but then anyone running for public office needs to aware of how they might be treated. And the picture?  Meh.  She knew exactly what she was doing.

How asinine to assert that these complaints of sexism would be “legitimate” if they’d come from some other source than Pelosi-bashing Republicans. If Newsweek used a cover photo of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in running shorts (and they may well have done this with Clinton, photos of him doing his running exercises were often published during his presidency), would ANYBODY have said that was sexist?
Palin doesn’t even look fetching in that photo (those aren’t ‘short shorts,’ folks—where are you guys from, Utah?) Obviously, it’s meant to represent her as a potential candidate to “run” for president. There’s nothing sexist about it, except to people who demand that their identity-group asses be kissed, whether they’re holier-than-thou Republicans or similarly self-righteous pseudo-feminist women. It might be “legitimate” to call the cover sexist if it was a scratch ‘n’ sniff.

I’m in agreement with Liz.  Posing like that in hot pants indicates a lack of seriousness about her role as a governor and ultimately as a vice president or even president.  And she chose to do it and allow it to be on the cover of Runner’s World.  If she just wanted to show that she is fit and energetic there are a lot of different outfits and poses that could have conveyed that.  Her intent seemed to be to show that she is also “hot”.

So for Newsweek to pick up on this issue and caption it as a “problem” is not something I consider sexist.  I think they are using the picture that speaks a thousand words to point out what the problem is.

Palin crying “sexism” any time she screws up her own image management is the problem.

And AKM is spot-on. Bear in mind that while Palin was indulging her vanity with that pointless photoshoot, there were communities in Alaska that were having to be bailed out with food parcels by people from all round the US, not to mention a load of other gubernatorial problems that she was failing to address.

Those of you who weren’t insulting assholes about it (i.e., everyone except pete) made excellent points as to why the Newsweek cover wasn’t sexist. The observation that Palin chose the photo’s background elements specifically as political commentary, thereby making it fair game, was particularly well made.

I still think it was a questionable choice though, Palin’s own culpability and cynicism notwithstanding. The problem with Palin is that she’s polarizing and divisive: That’s the overarching theme in the mag’s analysis—that she’s galvanizing the base at the cost of shrinking the GOP tent to pup-tent size. A photo of her at one of the ‘08 rallies in which she whipped attendees into a frenzy (“kill him!”) would have illustrated that better.

Believe me, I’m not crying a river over it—there are far more egregious examples of sexism perpetrated on people who aren’t cynically exploiting popular resentments, prejudices and fears for political gain. But even those who do engage in destructive activities can be the victim of cheap shots, and in my opinion, Palin was in this instance.