You can't and you shouldn't at least until things change/change back.

Why haven't you weighed in on this garbage?

I think you were trying to respond to me, not to Godot. (I'm the one who sent you the link to the cover photo from Spy magazine.)

You wrote:

"Personally, I don't give a whit what Spy Magazine publishes. I don't read that magazine. I read this magazine. And when you consider the righteous indignity that Joan Walsh displayed on behalf of Hillary Clinton, I expect something different. But we'll see what happens. Chances are we'll all be sorely disappointed yet again."

I see your point, and I don't mean to argue with you. I was just pointing out that a doctored photo of Hillary has already been published (perhaps one of many), in case you weren't aware of it.

You asked the editors of Salon if they would have wagged their finger at a photo like that. I cannot speak for them, and I don't know how they would answer that question. If Hillary was amused by that doctored photo (it was rumored that she liked it), I don't know if that would make any difference to Joan Walsh. But I think it's interesting that Salon has hired at least two notable people who contributed to Spy Magazine: Joe Conason and Camille Paglia. As Camille once pointed out in a column here at Salon, "My Spy debut had been piquantly flagged on the infamous February 1993 cover of a cheerful Hillary Clinton clad in dominatrix gear and wielding a riding crop in the Oval Office." I can't tell whether Camille was proud of that fact or whether she was being wryly self-effacing. In any case, it had no effect on her career here at Salon.

TIME magazine once had a funny photo of Ross Perot on the cover that might have been considered disrespectful since it made fun of the fact that he has a large nose. (I don't know how to describe it, but think of the image that often accompanies the phrase "Kilroy was here".) I honestly don't know if that's as bad as sexism, but I think most people are accustomed to seeing caricatures of politicians and celebrities in the media. Perot himself made a joke about his large ears in the middle of a Presidential debate. He also looked forward to seeing Dana Carvey's impression of him on Saturday Night Live. Obviously, he expected caricatures of politicians to be part of the game, even one as serious as Presidential politics.

I haven't made up my own mind whether a depiction of a woman as a dominatrix is inherently sexist, because I can't tell whether it's really about her gender rather than her individual personality. I think it's more likely to be misogynistic than sexist (if there's any distinction). My feeling is that it's not as bad as a depiction of Obama as a stereotypical (and implicitly despised) Muslim, since that is obviously an offense against an entire group of people, not just one individual. But I'm willing to listen to other people's arguments. In any case, depicting Palin as a dominatrix is disrespectful to a degree. Humor is like that sometimes. (By definition, humor is not supposed to be serious.) In this case, I'm not sure if it crossed the line, and I'm not sure if humor was out of place to begin with. I'm still mulling it over. Again, I'm willing to listen to other people's arguments. I didn't expect so many protests here at Salon.

Every time I read one of these shallow, dismal, little essays denigrating another woman, I feel more determined to do whatever is necessary to see the Dean/Pelosi/Brazile bunch of thieves punished into oblivion...hoping that disgusting sites such as Salon goes with them. Holier-than-thou, self-righteous, sanctimonious San Francisco snobs and elitists. You are going to get just what you deserve...talking amongst yourselves with no one at all being interested in reading it. It can't come too soon.

Wow. Just...wow.

Yeah, Subodim, no distinction at all, as long as you don't care about men.

Carry on with your hate-fueled religious war, folks. Make yourselves less and less relevant to the daily life of the republic. Keep generating the kind of quotes and stories that get Republicans re-elected.

Spew hatred of American voters, and do it in a publicly available forum. Demand that your candidate enact all of your fascistic fantasies when he is elected, including show trials for your political opponents -- and then scream and cry when he is not elected.

You're going to lose, and you're going to deserve it.

This will be fun to watch.

I couldn't agree more. When I saw Palin speak at the RNC, I hated the message, but knew she was going to be a force in the campaign. I agree with the posters who have said that this article reveals more about the writer than Sarah Palin.

This article also plays into the constant right-wing refrain that liberals (or "progressives" for those who are afraid of the "L" word) only like a certain kind of strong women - the liberal kind. Go after her hard on the issues, like her extreme positions on abortion, apparent attempts to ban books, supporting the Bridge to Nowhere, and her complete lack of foreign policy experience.

Or better yet, go after John McCain. Obama will not win if this turns into a Barack-Sarah popularity contest.

This kind of "baiting" used to be called "red baiting". I guess now it is "blue baiting" with posing Palin as a dominatrix. Has it really worked for the red party?

I think we should just call call her out on issues and opinions. If she does that and the majority vote still votes for her (in those safe electronic voting machines),then so be it.

Frankly, all the voting is rigged. I'll still vote but I might as well be living in Central American or in Africa (the continent, not the "country").

This really sucks. My mom is a fundamentalist Christian like Palin and I wouldn't either of them running the country or making important decisions.