Comments for Left wing media hypocrisy

Left wing media hypocrisy

2009-11-17T20:58:17Z

UPDATE: For all you lefties who don't see any hypocrisy in this, did you notice the subhead: "She's bad news for the GOP--and everyone else too" To continue the comparisons: What if Newsweek ran a cover picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the caption, "She's bad news for the Democrats--and everyone else too." Which happens to be true. But, we're supposed to believe that Newsweek, Time, etc. are reporting the news, when in fact, they have become simpleton mouthpieces for the left wing and Democrats. Makes me wonder: How do you solve a problem like Newsweek?

EARLIER POST: If

Newsweek ran a front cover picture like this of, say, Hillary Clinton, you would hear the left wing and feminists go into a all-out rant, condemning it for its sexism. As they should.

Will we hear from them when the picture is of Sarah Palin?

Here's some of what Palin had to say on her blog: "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."

Comment from Crazy Liberal on 2009-11-17

2009-11-17T21:20:22Z

We'll never know if your imaginary reaction of the "left wing media" is accurate because Hillary Clinton wouldn't have posed for such a picture - in any context.

If Palin doesn't want people to see these kinds of images then she shouldn't pose for such pictures. The fact that this picture even exists is precisely the problem that Newsweek is talking about with their cover headline.

That is why it is an appropriate cover photo. It illustrates the story perfectly.

Instead of obsessing about a magazine cover, perhaps Palin's supporters should start explaining why the things she wrote in her book or is saying on television seem to contradict the things she said during the election campaign. Was she lying then or is she lying now?

Comment from Joe the Cop on 2009-11-17

2009-11-17T21:23:51Z

Hawt...

Comment from Hold Please on 2009-11-17

2009-11-17T22:21:57Z

Not surprising that someone who identifies with the "liberal" side of things would post what you did. The reason I left the party is for things just like this.
You're right, Hillary wouldn't have posed for a picture like this - but it's not because of her personal views. Hillary's an opportunist, and if she had Sarah's figure and thought it would make her endearing to the people and get her votes, Hil would be right out there showing it off.
This blindness when it comes to Liberal icons and disdain for Conservative icons has to stop. If Hillary posed for this cover, no one would blame her, they would all blame Newsweek and the media for exploiting her. But because it's Sarah Palin, she's the one getting the blame for agreeing to be photographed like this.
Keep it fair. It's sexist, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.

Comment from jackspatafora on 2009-11-17

2009-11-18T01:59:00Z

Dennis, oh Dennis, can it be true you're really so gullible as to presume Palin didn't pose? didn't know ahead of time? didn't lust after the PR? didn't want people like you to lockstep say what you just said?

Look -- Palin is for mot Americans akin to watching the career of Lindsay Lohan or Jessica Simpson....interesting, embarrassing, and at heart just another silly matter of no consequence for the Republic...and surely for the presidency...let Sarah have her royalties and her talk show...but stop pretending she "represents" anything of importance to the history of a nation deep in crises she seems hadr pressed to pronounce let along understand...

Comment from Crazy Liberal on 2009-11-17

2009-11-18T03:26:46Z

Are you saying that Palin posed for this picture because she has a nice figure and "thought it would make her endearing to people and get her votes"?

One other thing - can you answer my question about when the half-term governor was lying?

Comment from J.M. Haas on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T16:58:10Z

hear hear!

Comment from Hold Please on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T17:26:58Z

That's exactly what I'm saying. Or rather, she and the GOP thought so.
The backwards and archaic thinking of the GOP is why I left that party too. Recognize that the only reason they picked Palin was because she was more physically appealing and approachable than Hillary. They never vetted her, they picked her because she's hot and "upholds" the Party's values (which, in and of themselves get the GOP into trouble).
But, politics is politics. Not one among them (on either side of the aisle) have a single grain of integrity. They do what they do to get elected. You ask if she's lying then or lying now? The answer is yes.

Comment from Crazy Liberal on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T17:38:39Z

So, which part of my original comment do you find incorrect? You seem to be saying essentially the same thing I did.

Her appeal is physical, that's why the GOP picked her, and that's why they have a problem.

Don't you think the picture Newsweek chose for their cover illustrates that point perfectly?

But I disagree that "not one among them have a single grain on integrity." There are elected officials on both sides of the aisle who are good public servants and others who are as you describe. This discussion, however, was about the ridiculous whining by conservatives about this week's Newsweek cover.

Comment from joey on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T18:53:32Z

not bad! she's a GILF

Comment from BeccaLynn on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T19:49:52Z

Um, Hillary or Michelle would not have done the beauty queen Betty Boop pose. It is not that she is in shorts and running gear. It is how she is standing. It's the difference between a man wearing suit and being taken seriously, and a man in a suit smiling with his head cocked to the side, and tongue hanging out being taken seriously. It's called BODY LANGUAGE.

Comment from *dan bradley on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T19:54:24Z

As if you don't have a few major media outlets on your side, as well. How does it feel to constantly play dumb?

Comment from Cassandra Gaddo on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T20:04:52Z

It should be noted that the image is from an August 2009 issue of Runner's World, so it was probably shot in early summer 2009, long after Palin had "gone rogue" from the official GOP party and their handlers. So I don't think you can really pin her decision to pose for this picture on the GOP. This was 100% her decision.

Comment from jcbeeno on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T20:18:06Z

Wow, I really wish Palin would go crawl back under the rock from which she emerged.

Jess
www.privacy.24ex.com

Comment from theroostarr on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T20:21:31Z

I love the false equivalences that you and people like you have constructed for yourself Dennis.

"Well if *insert liberal icon* did this, there would/wouldn't be..."

Comment from Megan Cottrell on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T22:02:47Z

It's rare, Dennis, that you and I are on the same page. But I do tend to agree. I think she has a bimbo image, and Newsweek wanted to capitalize on that to sell magazines.

That being said, Palin should be in control enough of her image to not pose for this picture.

What bothers me most is - what the hell kind of cover is this anyway? I keep looking at it, and I can't figure it out. It looks like she's in her living room, with two blackberries, next to a chair with a flag draped over it. Why is she in running gear? Perhaps there's something I'm missing here, but I can't understand who in the hell posed this picture or decided this was a good cover? It's just bizarre.

Comment from Crazy Liberal on 2009-11-18

2009-11-18T23:08:37Z

The photo was taken for Runners World magazine, thus the running gear. You'd have to ask the half-term governor why she thought it was a good idea to pose this way.

Why was it a good cover? The fact that the picture even exists perfectly illustrates the point of Newsweek's cover story - that the half-term governor is a problem for the GOP.

At the risk of incurring more conservative wrath, I'd also say that her bimbo image is partially her fault. One piece of evidence to support this claim - has any other female politician ever winked at the camera during a campaign debate?

Comment from Megan Cottrell on 2009-11-18

2009-11-19T00:04:03Z

Is Newsweek so short on cash that they have to reuse potentially inappropriate pictures from other publications? It's a ridiculous picture for the front cover.

Comment from Crazy Liberal on 2009-11-18

2009-11-19T01:28:06Z

I agree it's a ridiculous picture.

Why do think Ms. Palin posed like that?

Comment from M. Wolff on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T15:21:56Z

"If Hillary posed for this cover, no one would blame her, they would all blame Newsweek and the media for exploiting her."

wow, really? somehow I doubt that. Hillary is judged/blamed all the time.

Comment from hopseadoo on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T23:48:10Z

I really don't see what all the hoopla is about. Just imagine this was Bush or Obama posing for this picture. Would it be sexist? I really don't see anything wrong with the picture. I think the liberals and the conservatives are overeacting on this one. I would understand the sexist remarks if she was wearing a bikini or butt floss but not a long shorts jogging outfit. And yes she can control her imagine and she did - Thats why she is not in a bikini. What she can't control is the peanut gallery that is debating this non-issue. We should talk about what we are going to do to get this county back on it feet. Anybody got any ideas for that topic?