Newsweek's sexism and Sarah Palin
The frat boys at Newsweek were probably chugging some brewskies when they came up with the idea for this cover. How pathetic. I don't care whether this is done to a woman who is conservative or moderate or liberal. A Democrat, a Republican, a Green Party member or a Libertarian. It's sexist as hell. "The problem," with Sarah Palin, is what? That she's fit and attractive? Are they kidding?
There are legitimate reasons to disagree with her politics and her positions on issues. But this is not the way. (On the other hand, if it turns out that she's actually wearing pantyhose with her running shoes in this photo, consider this defense null and void.)
Anyway, I may be underestimating Newsweek's cynicism in using a photo the ex-governor of Alaska posed for when she was featured in Runners' World. Pictures of pretty women sell magazines, so maybe that's all it really cares about.
Here's Editor Jon Meacham's defense of the photo:
Right. I'm not a regular reader of Newsweek so maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe Newsweek really has run lots of out-of-context covers trivializing male political figures because of their looks.
-- Lisa Richardson
Thank you for calling out Newsweek on this blatant sexism! Their goal is to sale magazines while demeaning Ms. Paling. I don't share Ms. Palin political philosophy but taking that picture out of context and placing it on the cover is just wrong. I wish women organizations will speak up on this.
Posted by: alinosof | November 17, 2009 at 04:32 PM
yo, genderisti!...the woman, a political figure, (oops, sorry...personality), whose ambition, as the showbiz press puts, it has "legs", (sorry again)...so, using an already-posed-for-and-published magazine cover in which she is wearing running shorts may be in the order of an...hummn...
never mind...next time let's just show her at a keyboard "writing" her book and demean any woman or man with half a brain.
Posted by: ecco | November 17, 2009 at 05:08 PM
It's not Ms. Palin, it's Mrs. Palin. She's married.
Posted by: Dick Bacon | November 17, 2009 at 05:12 PM
She posed for this photo. She endorsed it's publication and world-wide dissemination by releasing the rights to Runnersworld. Even without Newsweek, this photo had been around the entire world, and back. Newsweek attributed the source on the front cover.
Exactly how is it sexist? She looks great and non-sexual. Was Newseek supposed to only use photos of Palin in business attire? Where is the memo that Sarah Palin gets to dictate which photo she POSED for are used as magazine covers, and which ones can't? If the photo is so sexist, why did Palin pose for it (and many more even more, uh, sexist)? And don't tell me it was originally for a running magazine. It was posted on the internet by Runners World, and had been distributed around the world already. Surely Palin knows about the internet?
Posted by: jayb | November 17, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Yes, Mrs. Palin posed for this picture (for Runnersworld) but it was to go with an interview on Health!!! The photo made sense for that subject, but for Newsweek's!!! There is a double-standard going on about Mrs. Palin and it makes me wonder why the media are so nasty towards her. Maybe there is so much more to her (in a positive and political way) that the pro-democrate media are trying to give a negative image of her...
Posted by: Mary | November 17, 2009 at 05:37 PM
The liberal media is void of integrity. If you tell a lie enough to a liberal it becomes truth.
Posted by: M. Scott | November 17, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Why exactly is this sexist, or trivializing? This is not a doctored shot, or "out of context" (what context do you think this is, anyway?) -- it's a shot of Sarah Palin doing what she has done best -- marketing herself. If you have a problem with this photo, maybe you should go ask Ms./Mrs. Palin why she posed for it in the first place...
Personally, I think it was the appropriate choice for the cover. I think it communicates exactly what the story is about -- how to deal with this person who is outside the "norm" as traditionally defined.
Posted by: james | November 17, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Well I don't know if she has a chance of winning the Presidency but she certainly is the best looking candidate we could hope for, as long as this picture was not photoshopped. Good luck Sarah, if you think this picture is sexist, why are you wearing the outfit (once again if that is you)?
Posted by: JR Jake | November 17, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Sexist? I seem to remember dozens of newspapers and magazines running photos of Obama without a shirt last summer.
Posted by: Lizzie | November 17, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Will someone please define for me "out-of-context covers?"
Posted by: Cowboy John | November 17, 2009 at 06:25 PM
Newsweek sells magazines and advertising thats the bottom line. Kind of like Harper Collins the publishing arm of News Corp, parent company of fox news uses its 24 hour cable network as an infomercial to sell Books by right wing nuts like Sarah Palin, Bernie Goldberg, Anne Coulter, Dick Morris, Laura Ingram and the other trainload of turkeys they trot out in weekly rotation to validate the right wing propaganda they call news shows. --Sells books, drives ratings, sells comericals, drives web traffic and a quadroople cha ching for News Corp.
Posted by: ctl | November 17, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Um, yeah, Palin is wearing hose. I didn't need a magnifying glass to see that in the print on Newsweek's cover. Maybe she shouldn't have posed for it, huh, Ms. Richardson, but the evidence suggests she did, so she's responsible for her own objectification. Don't blame Newsweek for Palin's bad taste and her proven use of her body for political gain.
Posted by: Carrot Cake Man | November 17, 2009 at 08:03 PM
I wonder if all of you people who are trashing Palin would feel the same way if Michelle Obama had posed for a running magazine with bare legs only to find that a conservative magazine had taken it and put it on their cover with a tag line trashing her.
There are two points to an argument against Newsweek. 1. As a news magazine why are they making any sort of judgment against a political figure? Their objectivity goes out the window right there. And 2. Why is it that it is a completely unrelated photo in a health magazine with her showing how fit she is illustrates that point? How does a picture of her showing her legs demonstrate that she is "bad" for everyone? I guess what Newsweek is saying is female politicians are bad for the country when they are beautiful and healthy.
Posted by: Katherine | November 17, 2009 at 08:09 PM
Sarah has done nothing but winkin' and grinnin' her sexiest best like someone selling her wares since she came on the scene. As a woman, I know what game she is playing, and the game of politics and the country's future is too important for us to buy what she is selling, and some don't even make as much money as she is managing to make. Maybe she should only come out at night.
Posted by: caroline Good | November 17, 2009 at 08:30 PM
I was in an airport magazine shoppe when I saw that cover. I picked it up and looked to see if it was a spoof of Newsweek by The Onion or Mad Magazine. And I didn't find out it was the real Newsweek until all this who-ha started surfacing. Credit to Newsweek for pushing the conventional cover photo to a different level. Credit as well to the women in charge of picking covers at Newsweek for going against what people might assume would be their stance on such a cover (yes ... Newsweek says two women were largely responsible for the cover photo choice.) Mrs. Palin should be thankful for the publicity - her aim this week IS to sell a lot of books right?
Posted by: PaulO | November 17, 2009 at 09:13 PM
What is wrong with the liberals?
So much hate for a pretty, smart woman.
Liberals are sick creatures, luckily they only make up less than 20% of the population, if that.
Yet they are loud and ugly.
Is there some pest control to get rid of them?
They stink up every comment section on Palin.
If the comments were about Illegal immigrants, the powers that be at the LA Times would have them removed.
Posted by: carla123 | November 17, 2009 at 09:33 PM
Miss Richardson:
I couldn't agree with you more.
Having read the Runner's World profile, there's no way that the photos Palin took for that issue should have been run in a news magazine. They were clearly staged and designed to highlight her running stretches and outfits. I thought Newsweek changed the context of that feature by appropriating one of the photos.
If someone had done this to Hillary Clinton, then Jon Meacham would have been fired by sundown. (and, yes, I DID call my blog "An American Lion" long before Meacham wrote his book by the same name and yes, I did steal the title from the book about Teddy Roosevelt so I am biased).
No one should be depicted this way.
Posted by: Norman Rogers | November 17, 2009 at 09:54 PM
To make it fair, Newsweek next cover should have our Idiot in Chief in a G string
Posted by: Mark | November 17, 2009 at 09:55 PM
I am a liberal and like her modeling, very sexy. Smart well that is up for debate.Knowing were the cash cow is very smart.
Liberals loud no they are very soft spoken. Now nut conservatives Rush,Bill and the rest of them that is loud and very ugly. I think a lot of conservatives have ever had a thought of there own. They listen to talk radio and there dad and can't think for themselves. At least the ones I have put down in debates.
Posted by: Russ | November 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I have subscribed to NewsWeek since the 1970's. Earlier this year they over hauled their magazine and they converted the format from covering the news to a commentary filled magazine. The "news" is no longer in the mag, this cover picture so cleverly photo shopped from another source proves it. It is now fully a liberal commentary publication. I have found many of the articles to be offensive. So I have canceled my subscription.
Posted by: Peter Raines | November 17, 2009 at 10:23 PM
No, the problem with Sarah is the fact that she is a religious, dangerous, lunatic red-neck. Look at her, leaning on the Flag, after a jog.
Posted by: aaron | November 17, 2009 at 11:01 PM
She's not, this is not, the books not, worth the cover price.
Posted by: julie Runco | November 18, 2009 at 12:33 AM
This Newsweek Cover is despicable. I always preferred Time Magazine and now I feel justified. The intent was obvious and now what had been indifference to the career and voice of Sarah Palin - Newsweek has made me feel empathy for this woman who is being hounded and analyzed to the point of ridiculous.
Aren't there other issues that deserve this attention?
Posted by: Larry Hill | November 18, 2009 at 01:23 AM
If Ms. Palin made any effort to rely on her intellect and achievements to promote herself, you'd have a case. See: Hillary Clinton. The comments some made about her thick ankles and less than statuesque carriage last year were offensive and out of line. Or if this were a shot of Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a ball gown, it'd just be odd. What point would that make?
But Ms. Palin herself relies on her charm and physical attractiveness, and on her hot-mom status most of all, to succeed, and has since she was a teenager. It's not as if the Runner's World photo was a paparazzi shot done without her eager cooperation. Given that, it's no more offensive - rather less so, I'd say - than a political story about Arnold Schwarzenegger accompanied by a Conan-era shirtless sword-wielding shot, to illustrate how he slashed red tape, say. Cheeky, perhaps, but not at all out of line.
The most offensive thing about this episode, to me, is how quick some are to play the victim card on behalf of all women.
Posted by: Chris B | November 18, 2009 at 01:54 AM
When I lived in the middle east, I was in a taxi with several men and one older woman. everyone was having fun talking about daily stresses and the difficulty of getting through israeli checkpoints. the woman seemed to really be enjoying the banter as all seemed to. but then one of the men said with typical middle-eastern male authority, "Really all the problems come back to women. They started this and we're stuck with it." The banter stopped with a powerful thud. No one in the taxi said anything but all knew that the woman was just escorted out of the jovial banter. It became a boy's club now. The men continued talking about other things with a little less joviality (if there's such a word). The woman didn't say one more word the whole trip home. I, being a foreigner, didn't feel I had the authority to speak up. But it seems like Meacham and a lot of the boys in the msm (david letterman?) are doing the same thing to Sarah Pailin. It's just as uncomfortable to me now as it was when I was in that car. Even some women are getting in on the act (dowd) I guess sexism is alright if it comes from the ones who coined the term in the first place. I felt bad about not speaking up in that car. I'd feel worst for not speaking up now.
Posted by: Husein Mashni | November 18, 2009 at 02:27 AM
carla123,
You say, "Is there some pest control to get rid of them?" Wishing for a way get rid of an entire group of people based on your understanding of their political beliefs is perhaps the worst possible way to engage in public discourse. In fact, it is not public discourse at all, but a call for mass murder. If you actually believe this, you are a truly terrifying person and the United States has become a truly terrifying place.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 18, 2009 at 05:11 AM
Newsweek is in the business of selling magazines. Sarah Palin is in the business of selling Sarah Palin. She may profess outrage. She may cry sexism. And after reading some of the illiterate comments here, it's apparent that there's no shortage of ex-dittoheads to wag their tongues on cue on her behalf. Bravo, Ms. Palin, on your portrayal of the indignant politician-cum-media-whore. You'll wear the sash of first runner-up in this contest. The winner, hands down, is Newsweek. A clever decision to recycle an old photo has people talking -- including, as we can see here, plenty of folks who would clearly be out of their depth if they were to actually venture deeper than the magazine's cover.
Posted by: GB in HK | November 18, 2009 at 05:13 AM
The picture seems unfortunate at first glance, yes, but I think it makes a fine point. The point is that Sarah Palin has no policy positions, no political philosophy, no strategy for governing. She is trying to rouse up populist hatred for intellectuals, politicians, anyone or anything that is not "American" and turn that into a popular movement. To what end, I'm not sure. The fact that she quit abruptly as governor of Alaska probably indicates that she saw the limitations of being an elected official. And by limitations, I mean it is not easy to be an elected official and promote populist extremism. As a media figure like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, it is easy. All you need is an audience of like-minded folks.
The point I think Newsweek is trying to make is that there is really no way to talk about Palin other than as a problem. The Runner's World picture is an image that pretty much gets at the heart of the problem with America: a healthy body is the highest good. Of course, everyone agrees that it's good to be healthy, but the obsession with fitness, with being physically strong and able, with thinking that the body is the source of all that is good about a person, is very very dangerous. The idea it promotes is to be stronger, not better. If we think of this at the level of national politics, the idea is a stronger nation, not a better one, is what we should strive for. Not good at all. A country should try to be influential, not strong. Influence means having positions, strength means being a bully. Palin exemplifies the danger of the latter, and that is what this cover shows.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 18, 2009 at 05:20 AM
Lisa, get over yourself and your gender! The business of magazine publishers is to sell magazines. SEX SELLS, and the main driver behind Palin's popularity, if we're going to be honest here, is that there are a lot of men of all political stripes who want to have sex with her LOOKS (not necessarily HER). Her detractors will buy it because the cover trivializes HER, not all women, and the buyer will hope that the article inside reflects the photo. Either way, Newsweek wins if ANYONE buys the magazine for any reason. That's about as deep as the meaning of this cover gets.
Sorry, folks. No nuance here. Keep moving.
Posted by: SAM | November 18, 2009 at 06:53 AM
She posed for this picture. She stood next to that flag and she bent her knees in that girly pose. Nobody made her interview with Runner's World. Nobody made her stand her and smile at the camera. She wanted their publicity back then when she was busy telling her version of her life narrative: that she was an advocate for fitness, but also for Title IX-mandated sports equality for girls. She wants that publicity. She doesn't want the publicity that shows her also to be a publicity hound.
I've been a feminist since long before Sarah Palin was born, and this image isn't sexist. It shows a show off showing off in a modest, come hither sort of way. It's a beauty queen pose out of the seventies. The "I" of the beholder is trying to have it both ways.
I remember images of Bill Clinton out running in his sloppy shorts and sweaty T-shirts. Not a pretty picture, but legitimate to print.
And by the way, conservatives were against Title IX way back when because they WERE sexist. We've come some of the way baby, I guess.
Posted by: Blue State Girl | November 18, 2009 at 07:06 AM
carla123,
You say, "Is there some pest control to get rid of them?" Wishing for a way get rid of an entire group of people based on your understanding of their political beliefs is perhaps the worst possible way to engage in public discourse. In fact, it is not public discourse at all, but a call for mass murder. If you actually believe this, you are a truly terrifying person and the United States has become a truly terrifying place.
That was a satirical remark... a lampoon on the hate filled liberals. Liberals hate Palin, not based on political views, but for reasons like she didn't abort her youngest child, her daughter had a baby out of wedlock, hate that has no logic other than jealousy perhaps. I am sure you have read the ugly posts here and other places.
And how can you hate someone for their political views anyway? How sick is that?
Palin represents everything that is good that the liberals hate...love of country, honesty, integrety, you know the things all the character qualities they lack.
Posted by: carla123 | November 18, 2009 at 07:56 AM
The media will get Sarah elected to the Presidency by keeping her in the news.
Whether clothed or unclothed, remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Just count the number of articles about her and her book this week.
She's everywhere. If the media just ignored her she might disappear. But that won't happen. Eventually her handlers will make her look smart and worldly along with her basic attractiveness and soccer mom personality. And she's white.
Race is a factor no matter what people say. In two years, if the economy and Afghanistan are a mess, look out!
Posted by: Ted Brown | November 18, 2009 at 08:31 AM
I like it. I sooo want Palin to be the Republican nominee in 2012, for several reasons: 1) Lots of entertaining pictures like this; 2) Funniest season of Saturday Night Live ever; and 3) Democratic landslide of unprecedented proportions. Go Sarah.
Posted by: Sandy | November 18, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Does anyone realize the headline is a play on words from The Sound of Music: "How do you solve a problem like Maria?"
From the Wikipedia page: "This song is sung by the nuns at Nonnberg Abbey, who are exasperated with Maria for being too frivolous and frolicsome for the decorous and austere life at the Abbey."
So I'm not really sure if it's a backhanded compliment for Palin being just a little hip or an attack on the GOP for being as stodgy as a nunnery.
Posted by: J in Pasadena | November 18, 2009 at 09:48 AM
When does this hag go away, the only good of this is that every time she talks it hurts the Republican party. I wonder if Rush is doing her, they are made for each other. This idiot is the Paris Hilton of politics, yet does not look nearly as good. I can't wait for the reality show and I hope they include the teenage pregnant daughter, Levi the responsible father and don't forget his meth addicted mother. What a classic Republican family with very high morals.
Posted by: steve | November 18, 2009 at 09:56 AM
This looks like Rush in shorts, check out those thighs. I give her this the picture took guts. This hag must think she is a babe. What an idiot
Posted by: paul | November 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM
This editorial is hilarious! The pose of the picture represents the first part of Sarah Palin's book! How she strived to run a marathon under 4 hours, how she carried two Blackberries as Alaskan Governor. Who cares if she took the picture for Runners World!
Newsweak is on the ropes just the same as the LA Times...perhaps if you East Coasties had any semblance of a brain left in your heads, you would come up with a novel way to portray Sarah Palin also...but alas, you don't.
Posted by: Karl Dahlquist | November 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I'm not a regular reader of Newsweek so maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe Newsweek really has run lots of out-of-context covers trivializing male political figures because of their looks.
In other words: you don't know what you're talking about, didn't do any research, and are simply filling the empty air with your empty-headed, ignorant, ill-informed, unfounded, and unmerited opinion. It's a wonder to me, with so much in common, you are not Sarah Palin's biggest fan.
Posted by: Cal Godotq | November 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Sarah's driving the left crazy and stealing all the thunder of the media while they all fight over her without paying a dime for it...what a performance.and it'll be tough to grapple with for leftists elites and limo liberals...but she's a real solid woman...who can governor our largest state, run for VP, and be the envy of all other political women and feminists who have to act like a man to claim they are a feminist. Love her and hope she keeps rockin' and rollin' and driving the East Coast types crazy!
Posted by: Jaime Fox | November 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Wait a second? It is sexist to show a picture of a woman in running shorts? Maybe you would prefer a Burka? Sarah Palin is an athletic, energetic woman. Everyone knows her background and her image, which to some is this over-eager, cheerleader-esque, über-patriot. I think the only reason anyone could possibly find this photo offensive (it's not "sexy") is that Palin looks like a parody of that image. You want "demeaning" photos of male politicians? Look at John Edwards on the cover of Newsweek, "The Sleeper," adjusting his loose tie, looking very GQ. or Newsweek with the ultra-preppie George Bush's out golfing, complete with 43 and 41 on their golf caps, looking frivolous and rich. Women and men sometimes wear shorts. Showing a picture of them in those shorts is not sexist (of course many of the comments calling Palin "a hag" and commenting on her thighs here are very sexist).
Posted by: JWC | November 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
To Caroline:
Sarah has "done nothing but winkin' and grinnin' her sexiest best"??
When? The first couple of weeks after her VP announcement, yes, she did do some winking that wasn't received well. Not since then. And she's done a whole heck of a lot more for our troops in the past few months than any Democrat in Congress has done in years. She's doing a lot for charities across the nation. She's actively scrutinizing the ObamaCare socialized, government-run health care fiasco and exposing hidden elements. So, you're lazy and/or lying about her not doing anything beyond being "sexy."
Why the criticism for her smiling? Yeah, I always think someone who is smiling is "playing a game." Kinda like that smile Obama flashes when he's nervous and off his teleprompter. If you're going to attack Palin for "making money," Caroline, please tell us all where Obama's money for his TWO non-scrutinized, non-vetted biographies went... cough, cough. Answer is: His bank account. As it should be, since this is AMERICA with free market principles and not a "spread the wealth" socialist banana republic. You make earning money sound like a BAD thing, which it isn't, Caroline. Just ask Cuba.
Your hypocritical, nasty "maybe she should only come out at night" comment is just like an ignorant leftist. You know NOTHING about her her stances or policies, so you try to trash and dismiss her and by alluding her being a "lady of the night", which is your way of saying you think she's a whore, with no shred of evidence whatsover. Either call a woman a slut or call a conservative a racist when you're losing... all overdone by the statists. Women who do this should be doubly ashamed of themselves. Calling another woman a whore (or suggesting it loud and clear, like you did) attacks all women, giving society permission to objective us or demean our character based on groundless witch hunt accusations.
Run, little leftist troll, run... Palin's popularity is exploding and Obama's approval with American voters is in the dumper, down to negative 14 today on Rasmussen.
Posted by: ClassicFilm | November 18, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Didn't Palin pose for that photo? And doesn't a posed photo make it fair game for the media to publish it any way they see fit?
The FACT that Republicans refuse to admit is that Palin was picked as McCain's running mate because she is good looking, NOT because of her experience(nil),her political philosophy(?), or her business acumen(?).
Palin LIED about not supporting the bridge to nowhere,lied about her daughters voting on her running for VEEP, and has pretty much distorted every issue she comments on.
So, I would say Palin in shorts reflects her abilities.
Posted by: bruce | November 18, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Fellas,
Politics is no different than the WWF. This cover of Newsweek is further proof that the dumbing down of America has gone from the National Enquirer to the once proud news magazines.
I think Sara Palin is not terribly bright, but then I think the same of Barak Obama. He's just a much better speaker. He is the male, democrat version of Sara Palin.
Posted by: Jeff Ross | November 18, 2009 at 01:57 PM
well, didn't she POSE for the picture or otherwise submit the pic for newsweek? i doubt they just locate whatever and publish it. she or an aid likely submitted the pic to them for their use!
Posted by: steve | November 18, 2009 at 02:12 PM
She is pretty hot. Her husband's a lucky man.
Posted by: andrew nelson | November 18, 2009 at 02:35 PM
A photograph is not sexist just because a knee-jerk (read "brain-not-involved) right-winger, or you, or anyone else says it is.
To me the meaning of the photo is obvious. Sarah Palin is "running" -- for office, duh!
Reading the Runners World slideshow and interview, for which Ms. Palin may or may not have been paid (an interesting question by itself; one would hope so), it's clear that this photo, with Ms. Palin leaning her elbow onto an American flag (in case you didn't notice) and sporting two invented-in-Canada RIM BlackBerry smartphones (two more than most people can afford or need), is the most interesting of the seven Runners World photos.
Turn the cover page, and get the Newsweek second-cover, of Ms. Palin's non-son-in-law Levi looking smug and scrappy.
I'm glad to be a Newsweek subscriber.
Posted by: George Girton | November 18, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Hey Steve guess what? YOUR WRONG! It's been reported that the photo was sold to Newsweek by the photographer which was in violation of a contract with Runner's World. Nice try though....
Posted by: cole | November 18, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Overexposed on the book trail. Palin fatigue has already set in. By 2012, everyone on the planet will barf when they hear "Palin this" or "Palin that". Truly the Paris Hilton of politics.
Posted by: Quatermass | November 18, 2009 at 04:05 PM
She's not hot. She's a bit of a butter face. Nice body, though.
I don't see the big deal about this photo.
Posted by: Donald | November 18, 2009 at 05:04 PM
I like the cover -- headline, photo, subtext(s). That people are not getting the Sound of Music reference and the RUNNING context -- running for office -- well, I feel bad for intellectual acuity in the US. Moreover, it's just a FUNNY PICTURE. The editors are giving her a hard time! Hasn't anyone noticed that Newsweek has gotten a lot more AGGRESSIVE and SNARKY (hate that word but it applies) since the magazine's make-over earlier this year? Well, THEY HAVE, I subscribe. This cover didn't take me five seconds to figure out. And I'm not that smart!!
Posted by: Eddie | November 18, 2009 at 05:40 PM