Time Magazine doesn't like Sarah Palin (what a shocker).

[Strk321]

Time has done it again. They have a cover this week that, if not a direct attack on Sarah Palin, is at least demeaning. It essentially suggests that she is not ready for the presidency.

Now is there anything inherently wrong with that? In of itself, no. But they never ran such a cover of the Muslim even though he was just as, if not more, unready for office.

Yes, I am definitely inclined to believe that there is a double-standard here.

[4rcane]

I laugh at those now who say Palin is not qualified to be even VP. Anyone wonder what Vice President Biden been doing? He must be very busy

[ReneeLynn]

Not a lot. Just the predictable few.

[davisfh]

The word “ineluctable” is correctly defined on the cover. Seems to me that they’re saying that she is inevitable and cannot be overlooked. I’d have to agree with that. And, by the way, the definition on the cover is exactly as it is in my old American Heritage Dictionary.

[aruanan]

They did something similar to Howard Dean.

In other words, they're repetitive and lack imagination.

[bgill]

Remember when they darkened a picture of OJ Simpson.

[bgill]

Maybe you hadnt noticed, but a lot of freepers don’t like her either.

Yeah, but most of them can't say who they do like.

[bgill]

I see two on that list who most likely don’t meet the NBC requirements.

[ansel12]

Very few, but if you take the time to look deep into their posting histories, you usually find out why, liberalism along the lines of Romney/Giuliani.

[Windflier]

What a great image. I do believe that Sarah is one of the shiniest beings I’ve ever seen. She’s simply remarkable.

[bgill]

Didn’t US News and World Report stop it’s paper version because of low subscribership?

[fight_truth_decay]

"there more to the book than its cover?"

Not much left of Time magazine anymore..a cover to hold together, what...like 4-5 pages total? So not much more to this magazine than it's cover.

[onyx]

She literally sparkles on her very own!

[matt04]

I don’t know about US News, but I believe Time or Newsweek published bi-weekly a few years ago for a couple weeks.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Thats why I curse out my computer screen like a sailor everytime I read a Sarah Palin thread.

The Palin haters on our side know their days of spewing poison about this woman are numbered.. and they will lose their soap box once she has success in 2012.

[onyx]

Point taken. Time could have sold more copies, had it used a beautiful photo of her!

[Strk321]

I get the things sent to me by some relatives. Some weeks (when the staff took their fish oil), they’re centrist and other weeks they’re far to the left.

There’s still the occasional interesting or insightful article, but as for straight-up politics, there’s nothing worthwhile in there 80-90% of the time.

Above all, avoid Joe Klein’s (straight-up DNC propaganda) or Joel Stein’s (bad attempts at comedy) columns.

Probably the magazine’s most persistently annoying feature is their inability to let go of manmade global warming. It’s like a nonstop obsession with them.

[Steelers6]

Great pic of Jim and Sarah, should be on the FreeRepublic Home page.

[Strk321]

"If this was 1960 instead of 2010 and Time magazine had an influence on American's political opinions, this could be damaging." Of course, in 1960 Henry Luce (the arch-Republican hater of FDR who did multiple covers of Chiang Kai-shek) was still alive. Quite different magazine back then. "However, Time, like Newsweek et al. is basically preaching to the liberal choir at this late date" Maybe not even the liberal choir. Most lefties on the net think Time is a centrist publication. They probably read really insane stuff like The Progressive.

[skr]

The image isn’t particularly negative.

[Strk321]

“Didn’t US News and World Report stop it’s paper version because of low subscribership?”

They still have a magazine, but it’s monthly instead of weekly and focuses more on economics, health care, and education than news or politics.