While I’ll try to assume best intentions on the part of the WaPo and their photo editor it begs the question, why is this angle the shot of choice?

The first time that I saw it I thought it was an interesting visual depicting how Palin’s ascent to the political stage shattered the glass ceiling – Palin’s pumps against the wingtips of the male political establishment.

However, I don’t recall seeing similar shots of Hillary Clinton when she was out stumping. Sure, she was wearing the infamous Hillary Pantsuit. But she wears pumps too. Note: I lived in Washington through the Clinton years and had a job where I often saw the Clintons and can tell you that she has some serious cankles thus, the Hillary Pantsuit.

Still I have to wonder it it’s something more sinister on the part of WaPo. The media has clearly tried to position Palin as nothing more than a good looking lightweight handpicked by McCain to bring some window dressing to the campaign. Does the Post’s choice of this image support that positioning?

As a woman, I find the whole nearly up the skirt shot pretty offensive.Though I do like her choice in shoes. However, the woman’s not Lindsay Lohan getting out of a limo.

Should Palin seriously be discounted as a leader because she’s pretty? What does that say for other women who aspire to serve? Stick to pantsuits like Hillary and do your best to look dour? Wait until your wrinkles have set in like Nancy Pelosi before you can be taken seriously?

Palin is a serious politician and deserves some respect – even from the photo editors.

As the New York Post reported on August 29th, Olbermann threatened not to go to St. Paul for the GOP convention unless his security was beefed up. According to the article, he fumed that he was left waiting on a Manhattan sidewalk for his car service to the airport and feared that he would be attacked. He subsequently did not attend the GOP convention, but "reported" it from New York instead.

The Times article also mentions that NBC staffers were humiliated that when Sarah Palin mentioned press bias during her speech at the convention, the audience began chanting "NBC!" So I guess it turns out they're not entirely shameless.

• Nick Cohen of the UK Observer (one of the Guardian papers), writes that "...instead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska."
  When Barack's berserkers lost the plot - The Observer
• Palin has party revved for victory - Edmonton (Alberta) Sun
• Desperate Democratic attacks on Palin very revealing - Las Vegas Review Journal
• Liberal Meltdown - Canada Free Press
• Sarah is Simply Sensational - Richmond Times Dispatch
• Palin pick may have torpedoed Dems' strategy - The Salt Lake Tribune

(Craig Ferguson has since become a real citizen of the United States.)

• At American Thinker, Bruce Walker takes a positive, philosophical view and likes what he sees.
• Eleanor Clift says lefty mainstream journalists are laughing at Sarah. Laughter now; bitter tears later.
• Nathan Thornburgh from Time hauls butt up to Alaska, talks to people and comes away with a pretty fair assessment of Sarah Palin. After two years of Obama hagiography, I'd forgotten what real journalism looks like.
• Instapundit notes the the comparisons with Dan Quayle and asks, "remind me again how many terms Lloyd Bentsen served as Vice President?"
• Tory Maguire in the Aussie Daily Telegraph thinks Sarah Palin is a game changer.

I can't find anyone observing that the new roster is two lawyers versus a naval officer and a small business owner/supermom. I could pull the GOP lever blindfolded, now.