The notion that the cover was sexist also implies that the magazine’s decision to use that kind of photo would not have occurred were she a man. This does not ring true to me. Washingtonian magazine put a shirtless Barack Obama on the cover of their magazine not so long ago and was accused of all manner of lapses in propriety — but not sexism.
Likewise, Palin’s insinuation that marketing considerations may have played a role in Newsweek’s editorial decision-making seems an unlikely insult for a conservative to make. Since when are we appalled by the exigencies of market capitalism? Yes, Newsweek’s circulation is dropping like a stone, and yes, the editor-types figured they’d sell more magazines with Palin (not to mention those shapely legs) on the cover, but isn’t that an implied compliment to Sarah — and one that belies the magazine’s snarky headline and critical article?…

It’s also true that Palin benefits from her attractive image — as well as from her image of not being a standard “politician.” She can’t have it both ways.You can’t pose for a picture and then be mad when people see it. Frankly, I think Palin should be happy with the photo. It’s dramatically better than a previous Newsweek cover of Palin in which an extreme close-up photo highlighting imperfections was intentionally used to (in my estimation) make her look less flattering.