When Laura Ingraham covered hosting duties for Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor last week, she sought out to answer the age-old question: Why do feminists hate Sarah Palin so much? Hmm—I can think of a few reasons. The resulting discussion between Ingraham, Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, and Republican pollster KellyAnne Conway produced some pretty interesting theories. Let’s check them out:

Theory #1: We hate her because we’re childless spinsters.

CONWAY: I think of some of the spinster childless columnists who have attacked this woman for her right to choose . . .

INGRAHAM: Can you name names?

CONWAY: . . . and have five children. There are too many to name and then it would make them relevant on such a great show.

INGRAHAM: Spinster columnists, OK.

—

Theory #2: We hate her because Todd is cute.

CONWAY: . . . I think she makes some women feel inadequate because she has five children, no household help. Not only is she not anti-man, but she has, as we could tell, a supportive husband and father.

INGRAHAM: And cute, too. He’s real cute.

CONWAY: . . . the extended family. He’s cute to go.

—

Theory #3: We hate her because Palin lost weight after having the 5th baby we never had because we were too busy being childless spinster abortionists without cute husbands:

CONWAY: . . . And look, she lost all her baby weight. It makes some women crazy. They’ve got 1.3 children and a Pilates schedule they have to keep, and it makes some of them crazy.

QUINN: . . . Well, let me just say first that she has a point about people being jealous about her losing her baby weight. I have to say.

NGRAHAM: OK, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

CONWAY: But you did too, Sally.

INGRAHAM: I got that.

QUINN: No, I’m crazed about that.

INGRAHAM: Right.

QUINN: And I have to admit it right here.

INGRAHAM: You’ve always been fit.

QUINN: Yeah.

INGRAHAM: So we’re not going to hear that from you.

—

Theory #4: We hate her because she’s a woman:

CONWAY: And look, I just want to say this, that with Palin, she looks so feminine. She acts like a woman, but governed like a man.

—

Theory #5: We hate her because we’re jealous that she’s pro-life:

INGRAHAM: Admit it right now. Palin is hot. She is pro-life. She shoots. She hunts. She has a big family. And all these feminists are like just seething with jealousy about it.

—

Theory #6: We hate her because she is against everything that we stand for:

QUINN: . . . I have to say that of all the people I know, I don’t know a single person who feels jealous about her. I think that most of the people I know who are not Sarah Palin fans just don’t like what she has to say.

Photo by lifeisaprayer, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

I’m totally with you on the child rapist excuses, Gainor. I’m a little bit less with you on the Late Night womanizer excuses. Remember: just because a man’s legal relationships with consenting adults happen to be aired the same week that a notorious child rapist was arrested does not mean that the two incidents are related. And I’m really not with you on the mainstream media’s Olympics “excuses,” which amount to Katie Couric announcing, “Despite a high-powered, star-studded U.S. appeal from Oprah to the Obamas, the Olympics are awarded to Rio.”

Which is worse: Hollywood filmmakers excusing child rape, or Katie Couric alliterating on “Oprah,” “Obama,” and “Olympics”? To Gainor, it’s pretty much a draw!

“Turn on any network last week and you saw famous people making excuses. It didn’t matter if it was Hollywood morons defending a rapist, David Letterman pretending he was a victim for treating his staff like a harem, or Barack Obama denying responsibility for the failed Olympic bid,” writes Gainor. “It looked like some nightmarish recast of an awful ‘Family Circus’ cartoon with all of the major characters shouting ‘not me’ with their hands fully in the cookie jar.”

Nope, my bad! According to Gainor, it “doesn’t matter” whether these people are excusing heinous sex crimes against minors, or simply refraining from speculating as to the Olympic committee’s reasoning for granting the games to Rio.

Gainor’s logic linking defenders of Polanski, Letterman, and Obama boils down to this: the media is failing to treat Roman Polanski like he committed a crime. The media is also failing to treat David Letterman and Barack Obama like they committed crimes. Because they didn’t. I’m just going to assume that my own failure to ignore this crucial distinction designates me as a member of the liberal media. Hey, got anybody who didn’t do anything wrong that requires an excuse from the mainstream media? Hit me up!

Bonus FOX News fail: “awful ‘Family Circus’ cartoon” is redundant. Every Family Circus cartoon is awful.

On July 3, Alaska Gov. Sara Palin announced her impending resignation from the Governor’s seat, citing “a higher calling.” In the wake of the announcement, Palin hasn’t demonstrated much interest in unsolicited advice from newspapers, bloggers, and Tweeters. But with all of the contiguous United States now at her fingertips, Palin could use our help more than ever. As Anne Applebaum wrote in today’s Washington Post: “what is that higher calling? If you don’t tell us, we have to guess—or make jokes about it.”

Weighing the pros, cons, and probabilities of our best guesses for Palin’s next steps, after the jump.

MAKE A RUN IN 2012.

Pros: May manage to successfully run all the raging feminists out of this country for good.

Cons: Couldn’t handle the job if she somehow, miraculously snagged it; couldn’t handle the campaign trail, either; with all the feminists gone, no one left to defend Palin and family from rape jokes.

Odds: 5 to 1

—

MOVE TO LOS ANGELES.

Pros: Inevitable, just get it over with.

Cons: Will be lost in sea of naive fame-seekers.

Odds: 10 to 1.

—

POSE FOR PLAYBOY.

Pros: Heff’s already interested; anything to erase the memory of her resignation speech performance (above); Runner’s World spread confirms knack for full-body modeling. Plus, money.

Cons: Icky; too obvious; would help print media, which she hates, stay afloat another month; move would lower Palin’s stock to below that of reality TV show rejects.

Odds: 500 to 1 (Maxim is a different story).

—

STAR IN A REALITY SHOW.

Pros: Would allow First Dude Todd Palin’s star to rise along with hers; money; helpful transition into posing for Playboy; punning opportunities for name of reality show endless (”Pallin’ Around With The Palins”; “The Beverly ‘Fuckin’ Rednecks,’” for chronical of relocation to L.A.)

Cons: Constant camera access to Palin family would only confirm fucked-up-edness of Palin’s life and world-view; would allow First Dude Todd Palin’s star to rise along with hers.

Odds: 10 to 1

—

GET A FOX NEWS TALK SHOW.

Pros: Finally, a venue where Palin’s mixed metaphors, folksy aphorisms, and refusal to listen to anything are encouraged; no one would be able to look away; would improve Palin’s improvisational skills while greatly inflating her ego; could really mine a Democrat-bashing “Politics as Usual” segment.

Cons: N/A

Odds: 3 to 1

—

RETREAT FROM THE LIMELIGHT.

Pros: Hates media; already undergoing public nervous breakdown; retreating from celebrity would make process less public

Cons: Loves media.

Odds: 1,000 to 1

IF SHE DID RUN, HE WOULD CRUSH HER, a new poll finds [PDF]. “A new national [Public Policy Polling] poll finds that nominating Palin could be a death wish for the party, with Barack Obama leading Palin 55-35 in a hypothetical contest. The key reason Palin would lose to Obama by so much is that even though she might be the top choice for a certain segment of voters within her party, there’s also a number of Republicans who say they would vote for Obama if their party nominated Palin.” [via ThunderPig].

ALASKANS STILL LOVE HER: Palin enjoys a high approval rating in her state:

Very positive 40.5
Somewhat positive 20.8 percent
Somewhat negative 12.5 percent
Very negative 20.2 percent
Don’t know/Didn’t answer 6 percent

Her staff still sucks, though.

WHY IS GRETA V.S. SARAH PALIN’S OFFICIAL JOURNO? Greta Van Susteren has bombarded the populace with interviews with Palins big and small. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza knows why: Her husband, John Coale, is a friend of the governor:

Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a “friend” of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on—essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a “fascinating person” who is “definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks.”

GRETA ON WHY SHE’S A NEUTRAL PALIN REPORTER:

[via ThinkProgress]

PALIN HEADLINE OF THE DAY, from Politico’s Ben Smith: “Palin Clashes With Feds on Wolves”

MADONNA is to Hillary Clinton as Britney Spears is to Sarah Palin: “Britney is not Madonna,” writes  Spears tour reviewer Jed Gottlieb. “She just ain’t. Madonna is Hillary Clinton. She’s whip smart and survives, even thrives by adapting. And Lord knows she wants it more than anyone. Britney is Sarah Palin. Baby drama headlines. Podunk back story and a massive industry machine behind her. She’s a manufactured star aimed at the lowest common denominator.”

Photo by Kurisu

* FOX News is concerned that the inauguration will just be one big, gay party. In a sea of boring inaugural coverage, it’s S.E. Cupp for the win! Drink this in, sinners:

But the gay-themed events have some conservative critics expressing concerns that while the celebration may be gay-friendly, it won’t be family-friendly.

Jennifer Giroux, founder and president of Women Influencing the Nation, a group that focuses on restoring traditional family values, said, “I think (the) inauguration should be kept away from that. Christians may love the individual, but they are offended by the gay lifestyle. It’s unhealthy—spiritually, emotionally and physically.

“It’s not a day where a group that feels like it has some payback coming should be putting its decadent lifestyle on display.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an organization that describes itself as “devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda,” is worried less about what happens in public and more about what may go on behind closed doors.

“I think most Americans would be put off if they knew what went on at these parties,” LaBarbera said. “Every special interest group has a ball of some sort, but this is not just any special interest group. More than half the country considers their behavior immoral.”

* Join the conversation on new Adams Morgan joint the Town Tavern’s strict (and gendered) door policies.

* CP film critic Tricia Olszewski (who is totally not making good on her promise to never again speak Twilight’s name) reveals that the tween vampire flick (and my personal favorite) will be released March 21.

* Womenstake details the importance of the Senate’s decision yesterday to bring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to a vote.

Photo by trialsanderrors.

The Oct. 13 issue of Newsweek features an up-close-and-personal photo of Governor Sarah Palin on the cover. The photograph (above), by Nigel Parry, is a tight shot of Palin’s face. In person, the image is more striking: the wrinkles are deeper, the stray hairs darker, the pores more defined.

Fox News yesterday had a field day with this one. (video below)

“Have you seen the latest cover of Newsweek,” asked the anchor, the disgust evident on her face, before introducing her two pundits: “Republican Media Consultant” Andrea Tantaros (hated it) and Julia Piscitelli of American University (thinks you guys might be exaggerating a little bit).

Tantaros called the cover a “gross slap in the face,” objecting to the fact that the photo appeared “un-retouched.” Said Tantaros, “it highlights every imperfection that every human being has, but we’re talking unwanted facial hair, pores, wrinkles.” The anchor chimed in, saying, “When they put you up close and personal on a magazine, even the gorgeous super models in the world, they retouch you to get rid of the normal flaws that human beings have. That’s what they do in the magazine business. They didn’t do it for Governor Palin.”

The cover was particularly grating to Tantaros when compared to Newsweek’s cover shots of Barack Obama. “After Newsweek has done so many favorable covers of Barack Obama that make him look presidential, that are clearly retouched. He looks flawless,” she says, adding: “He looks perfect, Julia. He looks perfect.”

“This is reality,” countered Piscitelli, after noting there was no evidence that an Obama cover had been retouched, either. “Demanding that political figures get retouching like super-models on the cover of news magazines is going a little far. What’s wrong with showing women the way they actually look, especially a woman as beautiful as Sarah Palin?”

I agree with Piscitelli that it’s absurd to ask news publications to adhere to standards set by fashion magazines. Photoshopping women’s bodies and faces—a process that takes even the most beautiful women in the world and distorts them to flawless, often anatomically impossible Barbie dolls—is out-of-control in women’s magazines; we don’t need Newsweek reinforcing an absurd standard of beauty on politicians, too.

But Tantaros raises an interesting point when she describes Obama’s photos as “flawless” and “perfect” (even though my guess is that Obama wasn’t Photoshopped, either). Obama and Palin are two of politics’ most beautiful people, but the playing field for political playboys and girls is uneven: When women show flaws, they’s called unattractive; when men do, they’re called “rugged.” (And when they’ve got spit on their mouth, they’re called “Internet Gold.”) So even without a delicate post-shot softening, Obama is a lot closer to “perfect” from the get-go. It’s not because Obama is implicitly more attractive (though he is, for the record, extremely, achingly attractive). It’s because he’s a dude.

Still, let’s take a moment to remember why the standards of beauty for women are so absurdly, unnaturally high in the first place. Oh, right, it has something to do with Photoshop (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C).

There is one point where Tantaros and I agree. Tantaros objects to the headline “She’s One of the Folks (And that’s the problem),” saying it’s an “insult [to] the folks of America [to] call that a ‘problem.’” I think Newsweek did well in putting a real Palin shot on the cover. But by pairing that “real” photo with the assertion that Palin’s “realness” makes her unqualified to be president (true), Newsweek also implies that Palin’s physical realness is a “problem” (problematic).

To recap: Showing real women, flaws and all—good thing; using a woman’s physical flaws to illustrate flaws of character, politics, and experience—bad thing.

MORE: Sarah Palin’s Entire Existence is Sexist..

More on Nigel Parry: Parry also shot Palin for Newsweek during the Republican National Convention, alongside McCain. For the July 16 issue of Newsweek, Parry shot Barack Obama (the photo is in black-and-white and not-so-close-up). Check out Parry’s other work here.