When Al Gore ran for president back in 2000, Rolling Stone put a picture of his bulge on the cover of their magazine. At the time, analysts determined it was yet another way to secure the soccer mom vote for the stiff one.
In an effort to take the soccer mom vote away from Sarah Palin in 2012, Newsweek is running a picture of her wearing shorts.
Because, as we know, a women loves a guy with a big unit but despises a woman who looks better than she does. And, yes, we're just shallow and stupid enough to use this criteria to make all of our political decisions.
Is it true? Would we really vote for a man just because he looks good shirtless on the beach? (Barak Obama) Would we really support the first female running for president only because her cankles are the size of tree trunks. (Hillary Clinton)
Maybe Democrats would.
Republican women, on the other hand, voted for two presidential candidates who had bum arms. (Bob Dole and John McCain) Republican women voted for a woman who... yes... looks good in shorts.
Or maybe the editors at these rags are just raging misogynists?
I can only assume Time is trying to Photoshop a penis into Sarah Palin's running shorts as we speak.