Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:35 PM

NEWSWEEK Explains Thinking Behind Palin Cover

Daniel Stone

As Sarah Palin’s book tour kicked off this morning, the debate continues to rage about what exactly she means for America and the Republican Party. This week’s NEWSWEEK takes a look at those questions, exploring the unique challenges posed by a would-be candidate both loved and loathed but almost nothing in between.

Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting  it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Watch the video here.

Advertisement
Tag(s):
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: dnewsweekd (November 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM)

I was so surprised when I started reading the two articles on Sarah Palin. It was so obvious that there was a motive to discredit her. She is obviously a threat to the Liberals/Progressives out there.

I just finished a book on Woody Guthrie and it helped me to understand the real term for Liberal/Progressives and why they are for Socialism. The correct terms should be Radicalism vs Conservatism. The Radicals described in the Woody Guthrie book were being enlisted in the American Communist Party, and so was he and many other musicians and actors. The book was written about Guthrie and the Dust Bowl Okies who had a tough time in the Depression years, and many were left in a terrible shape. The inaction of the government to help these people well enough and quickly enough led to union organizers, admitted Communists, to enlist singers, writers, and other artisans to entertain at union organizer rallies. The New Deal of FDR didn't help most of the Okies at the time, and the great works of the era were generally good works for the future, but the photos and articles of the time are testiment to the inability of the government to deal with Nature and its consequences. The Idealists always use whatever comes up to their advantage...to promote their agenda...The name of the Book is This Land Was Made For You And Me...by Eliz. Partridge.

This book really helped me to understand better the California connection of Radicals to the Massachuetts. and NYC Liberals. The Mass. Liberal writers, (poets and authors) came into prominance bashing the Puritan/Calvinist churches in the 1800s, and there was blame enough to go around. This would probably explain the Feminist movements and their Rainbow coalitions of Racist Blacks, Moviemakers and Homosexuals. The purpose of all this, I believe, is to either for the Vocal Minority to take over the government of the U.S. and squash the Silent Majority...and they are serious about it.

Anyway...The new term for Liberal/Progressive, in my view, is not Democrats vs Republicans, but is the old term of Radicalism. So it's RADICALISM VS CONSERVATISM....So I hope you will take the time to read and understand what I have written, then bash away, and some will, but "THESE COLORS DON'T RUN" and the truth is still the truth.


Posted By: drewand (November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM)

You reep what you sew, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and finally what comes around goes around. Sarah created her own character and like her or not there will be comments, pictures , editorials good and negative. Me.., I think she could be the best thing going for the Democratic party. Keep the conservative nut jobs coming, please. Don't reform the Republican party keep it divided and stupid.., I LIKEY!!!


Posted By: kevinstansbury (November 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM)

Not only is the image of former Governor Palin troubling, but the tag line "she's bad news for the GOP - and everyone else too."  It's troubling that a so-called Newsmagazine would make such biased presumption and clearly wrong.  Imagine the uproar if Nancy Pelosi (a figure equally or more divisive) were decribed as bad news for the democrats and bad news for everybody else too?