Read other letters about this article
...who demand equal images of Hillary, or Michelle, or Obama as a houseboy, etc.... you're missing the point - clearly you lack the intellect to understand the nature of parody. Parody exaggerates a trait to make a point. Sometimes parody is offensive, but it doesn't mean it's inaccurate.
If Obama acted like a houseboy, then a picture satirizing him as such would be spot on. But he doesn't act that way, so an image of him would be simply a racist fantasy (see Limbaugh's characterization of Obama as a man-child, and yes, "boy")
If Obama were dressed as a "dancer" appealing to a certain enthusiastic demographic, the image may be hard to take, but it would be legitimate satire.
If pumas were depicted as a crowd of angry vaginas, that would be accurate. If depicted as a crowd of thoughtful, rational voters... that would be so far off the mark it would be sad.
Had Palin been dressed up in a sheer teddy with a submissive look, that would have fallen flat - it's not in character for her, and would be simply gratuitous titillation.
But that's not Palin. If you deny that she appeals to the gonads, then you have virtually no understanding of sexuality. I'm completely against everything she stands for - but I see her carefully-cultivated "librarian fantasy" persona clearly, and it is not unappealing - on the surface. She is clearly *very* pleased when she's dishing out vindictive invective to the left (or fatal knife cuts to mooses). And if you listen, you will know that the rightist yappers - men and women alike - celebrate her as a dominatrix, hoping she will whip the left into submission, and are obviously sexually energized by this thought. Is this sexist? Nope. But it IS sexual - only a moron misses that fact. It's human nature, and if you will open your eyes, you'll see it playing out.
So right on, Gary and Salon; you nailed her for what she is to the right.
Now, let's make sure everybody knows what a liar, what a fascist, and what a fundamentally nasty person she is as well.