<div>Palin made a comment recently that she would not pose for a Newsweek cover photo in shorts. This could be interpreted not as a issue of sexism, but simply that Newsweek was promoting a image of Palin that does not project the respect that more formal clothing inspires. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------</div>
<div>My comments above I suppose did not clearly state what I intended. I was not addressing Newsweek's motivations in the above comments. I was addressing the mindset and intentions of Palin and/or her camp, who are clearly in damage control mode to reconstruct her image to that of a more "thoughtful serious competent" personality, given some of the interview and comment gaffes she made or allegedly made during the presidential campaign (Couric interview, where she dodged a question to name newspapers or magazines she reads, Gibson interview and the "Bush doctrine" gaffe, the alleged "I can see Russia from my back yard" comment as evidence of international experience, et. al.). This perhaps involves intentions far beyond promoting book sales. If Palin is open to possibly running for political office again, which I suppose can be questioned, her image must be reconstructed to replace the common evaluation in the media that she lacks intellectual capacity or education. Thus, though the Palin camp is playing the "sexist card" in their responses to the Newsweek cover, a tactic that might place Palin's critics on the defensive and mitigate further media attacks, what might really be of more concern is that the Newsweek cover photo did not fully communicate the image of a thoughtful serious person deserving of professional respect; professional women usually do not do business in running shorts, they wear more formal attire, of course, just as professional men.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As to the sex appeal of the Newsweek cover in question, I find it laughable... Maybe in Saudi Arabia or Kabul would such attire be regarded as sexual, but given current standards of public dress for women in the US, the running outfit is modest. What is or is not sexually attractive is subjective and conditioned by culture, of course. No doubt some find this photo to have sexual appeal, but for others viewing it might be therapy for priapism</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Kenneth Marcy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kmmos1@verizon.net">kmmos1@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On Thursday 19 November 2009 10:06:06 Ted Moffett wrote:<br>> Palin made a comment recently that she would not pose for a<br>> Newsweek cover photo in shorts.<br><br></div>Sarah Palin's current job is to promote her book, and making such a<br>
comment, sure to engender conversation, is part of the process of<br>keeping her name, and her book, in front of the public's awareness.<br>
<div class="im"><br>> This could be interpreted not as a issue of sexism, but simply that<br>> Newsweek was promoting a image of Palin that does not project the<br>> respect that more formal clothing inspires.<br>
<br></div>That's rather further down Newsweek's list of reasons, I suspect.<br>Closer to the top of the list is selling their magazine. Most people<br>know that photos of attractive women on magazine covers raise sales<br>
more than most other types of photographs. That Palin has sex appeal<br>is clear; that alone is reason enough for some magazines. Newsweek,<br>in particular, likely did find it "the most interesting image."<br>
<div class="im"><br>> Would Newsweek run a photo on the cover of Secretary of<br>> State Clinton in shorts?<br><br></div>No. Hilary Clinton is engaged in diplomacy, not book sales or public<br>image maintenance.<br>
<div class="im"><br>> The Palin cover photo is thus suggesting an image of Palin that some<br>> might think is not taking her seriously...<br><br></div>Not taking her, or the image, seriously would be a mistake. Look at<br>
the photo. One sees a healthy, attractive woman posed with one elbow<br>jabbed out over, and holding down, an American flag disrespectfully<br>draped over the back of a long-legged bar stool. Her other elbow is<br>jabbed out leading to a hand on hip that suggests "Look at me; I'm<br>
looking at you." And what is her other hand holding? An athletic<br>runner's stopwatch? No, it's holding a political runner's cell phone.<br><br>This photograph was staged and posed with both athletic and political<br>
running in mind. Anyone who thinks it is merely disrespectful in some<br>sexist way is underestimating Sarah Palin's power for self-promotion.<br><br><br>Ken<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br> </div></div></blockquote>