Conservative columnist Matt Lewis takes on the Washington Post’s Jonathon Capehart today. Capehart suggested that the Newsweek cover photo dooms Palin because people won’t take her seriously or something since she’s dressed in running attire.
Lewis finds the analysis highly suspect:
h/t Stacy Drake
“Folks want to be able to envision someone sitting in the Oval Office,” writes The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart of Sarah Palin’s Newsweek cover. “They don’t necessarily want to envision [a president] in the pages of Esquire magazine’s ‘Sexiest Woman Alive 2011? or Maxim.”
The comparison seems like a stretch. But accurate or not, Capehart’s contention is sure to spark controversy.
He goes on to add that Palin “can’t possibly be taken seriously as a presidential contender dressed like that, especially since this is the second time she has given Newsweek a less-than-presidential pose.”
Note: The other Newsweek cover Capehart references was intended only for Runner’s World magazine. A photographer leaked the photos, and Palin later called Newsweek’s use of them “sexist.”
I personally like Capehart, and it’s important to note that this is his analysis based on how he perceives the voting public will interpret Palin’s appearance.
Still, Palin’s attire seems perfectly appropriate to me.
How much of this might have to do with the disconnect DC denizens have when it comes to judging people from more rugged regions, such as Alaska? Real people don’t always wear blazers.
I also wonder if there might be a double standard here. Is the fact that Palin isn’t donning a traditional ladies’ pantsuit any different than male politicians who pose sans business suit? Jon Huntsman, for example, walks around in cords and jean jackets — and people seem to think it’s endearing…