Way back in October of 2008, Newsweek took fire from Palin supporters for a cover photo that was not sexy enough. In a segment on Fox News, a Republican media consultant picked the extreme closeup apart, pointing out wrinkles, pores, and unwanted facial hair.

While Jezebel, among others, pointed out the falseness of the assertion that Obama magazine covers were retouched to make him look flawless, the title of the cover story was a dead giveaway: The Palin Problem. It doesn’t seem likely that they picked the photo for its artistic merit.

The biggest difference then, though, was that Palin herself wasn’t doing the complaining. The McCain campaign staff that she so thoroughly derides now apparently kept her from lashing out then, and wisely so. Getting worked up over a magazine cover, especially ones as relatively innocuous as these, doesn’t bespeak the toughness demanded of a leader.

Plus, Rachel Sklar has a point. When she posed for the sexy Runner’s World spread, she and the magazine had to know they were going to sell to a wider audience than just jogging enthusiasts. This doesn’t make Palin fair game, but it raises the bar for what she gets to call “sexist.”

As for Newsweek, their respective points might have been better served in each case by using less controversial cover photos, but would have arguably been seen by far fewer people. Maybe, in the future, they should stick with (real) pictures of Palin holding guns. Everyone seems to like those.

But! Still, it is controversial, and Palin herself disapproves of it, saying that it is sexist and taken out of context. Now Runner’s World is getting in on the action with a disapproving editor’s note on the story:

EDITOR’S NOTE:
On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page. Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s agent, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission.

Well! I hope Newsweek is suitably ashamed of itself!

Here’s the thing: Does Newsweek need the permission of Runner’s World here? I’ve reached out to them and asked, but I’m guessing they didn’t buy this photo in a back alley out of someone’s trenchcoat. Probably there were resale rights and Newsweek legitimately transacted for cover use that way. They do this every week, so that is my guess.

[Next-Day Update: As it happens, Newsweek didn't need the permission of Runner's World...but the photographer did. Jeff Bercovici at Daily Finance confirmed from Runner's World that they had a year-long exclusivity clause in their contract with the photographer, that was violated in selling the photo to Newsweek. Full story here; the post as written yesterday continues below, though the "why" in my next question is pretty well answered.]

Why is Runner’s World distancing itself from the photo? Yes it’s controversial, but Runner’s World declines to explain what part of the controversy it wants no part of. The fact that a photo of politician in athletic attire is on the cover of a newsweekly? So the only acceptable clothing for a politician to wear on a magazine cover is a suit, then? That’s sorta weird, you’d think a magazine about running would want to see the sport promoted across all areas of a healthy, active lifestyle. Maybe it’s because the image isn’t dignified? But then why did they publish it? Is it because the headline is “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?” and not “I’m A Runner?” But then if it’s only appropriate to picture a person in running garb when they are being interviewed for a running magazine, why then does the Runner’s World 5-page interview contain all sorts of bits about Palin, the politician? Doesn’t seem fair, shouldn’t a news and politics magazine get to invoke Palin, the Runner? And by the way, if the two don’t mix, then why did you shoot Palin in her office with an American flag?

Sorry, Runner’s World, I’m calling you out: You’re just distancing yourself from the Newsweek cover because it’s getting bad press. But I cannot think of a single reason why you should be annoyed that your duly-published photo should be duly published elsewhere. If you have a reason, you might have done well to duly publish that.

And by the way, if Newsweek was looking to publish a gratuitously sexy image of Palin from that photoshoot, they would have done better to choose this one (coy!), or this one (wearing pink!). They chose the one with the flag — the one that was controversial not because it showed Sarah Palin’s legs, but because it pictured her casually leaning on an American flag tossed over a chair. It wasn’t the biggest controversy of the summer by a long shot — mostly a blip, really, hitting just before the July 4th weekend — but that was the news, such as it was, that came out of Palin Joggergate.

People I respect think this cover is sexist, and I have taken time to think about it — I’m not coming to this conclusion lightly. (I thought the Diane Sawyer headline in Capitol File a few months back was way worse, but no one seemed all that exercised about that.) And maybe it’s just because I remember this flag controversy from early in the summer, so to me, that’s what the photo was all about, and the connotations it has. But also — for a politician who makes a big deal about how she’s off going rogue, for one who makes athleticism and out-of-the-box-ness part of her personal brand, for one who posed happily for all these shots not 6 months ago, after she’d gotten her book deal, knowing the kind of scrutiny she is under — well, I am sorry, but I don’t blame Newsweek for taking the bait. Sarah Palin is a savvy, experienced grown up, she should take at least some of the responsibility for setting it. Refusing to do so is, in my estimation, the most un-presidential thing of all.

I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

Back then, she got a pass on the whole “for that reason alone” thing, mostly because she hadn’t done anything yet. John McCain had stunned the political establishment by naming her as his VP on the Friday morning after the DNC, and by Saturday afternoon the chattering classes were further rocked by the revelations of her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. News started to bubble up over the next few days as the press tried to find out who this newly-announced VP nominee actually was, but certainly not with any help from the nominee herself: By Wednesday, Sept. 3rd, when Palin strode to center stage at the Republican National Convention, flanked by her sparkling extended American famiy, she still had not made herself available for any interviews or presented herself to be vetted in any way, shape or form.

Back then we didn’t know that John McCain hadn’t vetted her, either. We didn’t know about Troopergate. We didn’t know that she was completely unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine, or the Supreme Court, newspapers. We didn’t know where she got her snazzy new wardrobe, nor how much it cost, nor who paid.

Back then we hadn’t seen Palin Meet The Press or Face The Nation, but we assumed she would, eventually. (She didn’t.) Back then we assumed she’d be interviewed by all the nightly news anchors, and cablers, in their role as Fourth Estate, kicking the tires on candidates on behalf of the voting American people. She made it to the evening news, eventually, after the McCain campaign tried to stage-manage her into the most limited access possible, in the hopes that she’d somehow avoid making huge gaffes. (She didn’t.) She finally made it to NBC Nightly News over a month and a half after her RNC speech, weakly promising to release her medical records really, really soon. (She didn’t.) Did she promise at one point to have a nice chatty sit-down with Sean Hannity? Oh, well, that she did.

Yes, this was before she took a prank call from “President Sarkozy,” before she whipped up campaign crowds into a sorta-scary frenzy against Barack Obama; before she went rogue.

It was before she was expertly skewered by SNL, before people learned what aerial wolf hunting was, and before she tried to speak during John McCain’s concession moment. It was before the turkey-video fiasco (which effectively turned me vegetarian); before all the behind-the-scenes articles came out; before she casually posed in spandex with her arm resting even more casually on an American flag.

It was ten months ago to this day. That night, she swaggered onstage in front of the friendliest crowd ever, warmed up by Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, and blasted the media for daring to want to know who she was, what she’d done and what she stood for. Well, now we know. And it turns out that ten months ago, she was full of it.

So, Sarah Palin, you owe the media an apology. And ten months later, permit me to say:
I told you so.

Rachel Sklar is the Editor-at-Large of Mediaite. Follow her on Twitter here.