No, the Palin Newsweek cover wasn't sexist

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.