2008 Elections

Don’t worry, be Mike Gravel

No job, no money, no problem -- after personal setbacks, the quirky Alaskan returns to his first love as a long-shot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Don't worry, be Mike Gravel

If Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska now running for president as a quasi-lefty long shot, can be said to have a base, then he should have been standing right in the thick of it Wednesday night.

Fresh from taping an appearance on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” in midtown Manhattan, Gravel and press secretary Alex Colvin took an impromptu drive down to Cooper Union in the East Village. Six blocks north of the defunct punk-rock club CBGB, venerable leftist historian Howard Zinn was leading a group of actors and musicians, including Danny Glover, Ally Sheedy and Steve Earle, in a selection of readings and songs, such as Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” Bob Dylan‘s “Masters of War,” Allen Ginsberg’s “America,” and speeches from Martin Luther King Jr. and Cindy Sheehan. But when the 76-year-old Gravel, white-haired and clad in the dark suit and red tie that are the uniform for all male presidential candidates, strode into the back of the crowded auditorium almost two hours after the event began, there was little hint that the mostly graying throng in attendance recognized him. What notice Gravel did get was from one 30-something man who told him to keep up the fight, and from two gushing, acne-marked teenagers who asked for an autograph and promised their vote if he continued sticking to the issues.

Gravel, who drove a cab when he lived in New York and attended Columbia University more than 50 years ago, had weathered 60 blocks and 45 minutes of post-rush-hour Manhattan traffic to be at the event. But he shook no hands that were not offered to him. And though he had expected to get backstage and see his old friend Zinn, after a minute of bewildered negotiation he was told sharply that he would have to wait — the kind of reprimand that is simply not given to a presidential candidate. Instead of arguing he turned for the door. He didn’t want to be a nuisance to Zinn, he explained halfheartedly. “After an event like this one,” he said, “no one wants someone they haven’t seen in years coming up and shaking their hand and saying, ‘How are you!?’” Mean, angry Mike Gravel, the man who had said during the first Democratic presidential debate that the other candidates “frighten[ed]” him, who demanded of Sen. Barack Obama, “Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?” just gave up and walked away.

But there were those three people who recognized him, two of them eager political neophytes starstruck in Gravel’s mere presence. That’s the audience Gravel, who was the first Democrat to announce his candidacy for president, is slowly beginning to attract. According to On Politics, a blog by USA Today, Gravel’s name became the 15th most popular search in the blogosphere shortly after the debate. A YouTube video of him at the debate has been viewed more than 200,000 times, and, according to a graph of traffic stats provided by Alexa and posted at Students for Gravel, in late April and early May, Gravel’s Web site had more traffic than those of the three Democratic front-runners.

Gravel’s support seems to be coming from those disaffected Democrats who, tired of politics as usual, watched the debate and saw a fiery man no one had heard from for 25 years saying things no other candidate would dare. After the debate, the image of Gravel as a sort of cross between Adm. James Stockdale and Grampa Simpson — crotchety, rambling and maybe a little dotty — is congealing into conventional wisdom in the snarkier quarters of the mainstream media. But there are some Democratic primary voters who not only don’t mind cantankerousness but relish it as the mark of a plain speaker. They like a candidate who insists on being quoted calling Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a “son of a bitch” for saying the freshman class of congressional Democrats should avoid “The Colbert Report.” And though they may never have heard of Gravel before, his new fans are enjoying a glimpse of the bomb-throwing senator of three decades past, whose filibusters and unorthodox tactics made him both loved and hated among the public and his Senate peers, and who, then and now, has always seemed oblivious to the long odds against him.

Over dinner at a Manhattan coffee shop after the Zinn event, as Gravel and company, now joined by a scruffy middle-aged Green Party supporter who identified himself only as “zool,” drank the four minibar-sized bottles of red wine that came in the “Colbert Report’s” goody bag, Gravel reminisced about his combative tenure in Congress. He admitted that by 1980, when he went down to defeat in a Democratic primary after 12 years in the Senate, he had alienated “almost every constituency in Alaska.”

“I was like Richard III inside my armor with all the scar tissue,” he says. “All you had to do was blow on me and I’d fall over.” With that, he retired from politics, disgusted, he says, “with public service, with the way government operated.”

Now, however, he is broke, unemployed and happy. He has, in his own words, “zero net worth.” His Senate pension all goes to his ex-wife, and he hasn’t earned a regular paycheck in years. Since leaving the Senate he has endured two bankruptcies, one corporate and, just three years ago, one personal. He doesn’t care. He quotes mythology scholar Joseph Campbell, who advised everyone to “follow your bliss.” He and his wife have “difficulties” financially, he says, but he also says he has never been more content.

Mike Gravel is just following his bliss, and for him, that’s always been politics. He caught the bug growing up in Springfield, Mass., the child of blue-collar French-Canadian immigrants. At 26, after a few years in the military and then graduation from Columbia, he began thinking about where he could move to get his start as a politician. “I had no money, I had no name and no contacts. So I thought I might as well go some place and start from scratch.” He narrowed his choices down to Alaska and New Mexico, and chose Alaska because he didn’t like warm weather.

“When I got there, I was broke. It was probably about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, I was at a gas station, and I asked the guy, ‘Do you know where I can get a job?’ I didn’t care — any job. I was broke. He says, ‘I’ve got a friend who’s a manager of a real estate company. I’ll give him a call, and why don’t you show up there Monday morning?’”

He got the job. In the fall of 1958, two years after his arrival, while Alaska was still a territory, he ran for what would become, in January 1959, Alaska’s first state Legislature. He lost. By the 1960 election, Gravel was prevented by new residency requirements from running for the Legislature, so he ran for the Anchorage City Council instead. He lost. In 1962, he finally won election to the state House of Representatives. By the start of his second two-year term in 1965, the articulate and handsome New Englander was speaker of the Alaska House.

In 1966, he tried to take out the incumbent occupant of Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat, a fellow Democrat. He failed. In 1968, he set his sights on the U.S. Senate. To get there he again targeted a Democratic incumbent, the grand old man of state politics. In the Democratic primary, 38-year-old Gravel beat 81-year-old Ernest Gruening, a former territorial governor whom many considered the father of Alaska statehood, by playing up his youth. He blanketed the low-cost Alaska television market with the slickest political commercials the fledgling state had ever seen. Though it might come as a surprise to his newfound fans, the liberal Gravel also ran to the right of Gruening on the issue of Vietnam. Gruening had been one of just two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which authorized the Vietnam War.

Gravel says now that he was never really a hawk. “If Ernest Gruening only knew at the time that when he voted against Tonkin, I wrote him a heartfelt letter saying how great he was for doing that,” Gravel says. “But when I ran, being a realistic politician, all I had to do was stand up and not deal with the subject, and people would assume that I was to the right of Ernest Gruening, when in point of fact I was to the left of him.”

In the Senate, Gravel proved to be antiwar and a reliable liberal on most issues except the environment — though he was an early crusader against nuclear testing, as an Alaskan, his political survival required him to support resource exploitation. Gravel also became known as a firebrand with an unorthodox style of doing business. Nancy Leonard, who worked as his representative on the Senate Finance Committee, says now that Gravel “didn’t just dismiss an idea on the basis of ‘We don’t do things that way.’ He’d think, ‘Is there a way to do them differently?’ … He did a couple of really good things … but he was never going to be one of those ‘Let’s dig down and burrow and figure out the rules here and see what we can accomplish day-to-day’ senators.”

Gravel reports that his old colleague Joe Biden recently put the matter more plainly. After the first Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Biden, who served with Gravel in the Senate 30 years ago, introduced Gravel to Mrs. Biden. According to Gravel, Biden told her what to expect from Gravel on the presidential campaign trail. “He says, ‘I’ve got to tell you, this is the old Gravel — he’s just going to be lobbing hand grenades into this whole thing.’”

Sometimes Gravel’s methods were both dramatic and effective. In June 1971, after the Nixon administration obtained temporary injunctions to stop both the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing further portions of the controversial Pentagon Papers, a secret internal Department of Defense history of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court agreed to take both cases. The night before the court’s decision, so that the papers would be public no matter how the court ruled, for three and a half hours Gravel read passages of the Pentagon Papers aloud in a Senate subcommittee meeting, pausing to cry, and entered thousands of pages into the Congressional Record. He, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky then published the Pentagon Papers as a book. The same year, Gravel’s lengthy filibuster against a continuation of the military draft was successful, and it helped bring about the end of conscription in 1973.

Other times he just annoyed people. In 1972 he nominated himself, unsuccessfully, for vice president at the Democratic National Convention. In 1978, he killed a compromise bill on the question of huge parcels of Alaska land then still under control of the federal government. The bill, which would have brought some of the property under the control of Alaskans while also determining how much would be preserved as parks and refuges, was the product of the almost-obsessive work of many disparate groups and, especially, Ted Stevens, the state’s Republican senator. Stevens, who through a spokesman declined a request to be interviewed for this article, reportedly blames this, and Gravel, for the death of his wife, Ann, in a plane crash later that year when she was accompanying Stevens on a trip. In 1979, testifying before a House committee, Stevens said he thought that “if that bill had passed, I might have a wife sitting at home when I get home tonight.” A 1979 Washington Post article by Nicholas Lemann said that Stevens had been “drop[ping] hints, in Washington and Alaska, that he felt the only reason he was in that plane in the first place was that he had to piece the effort for a lands bill back together, and that the only reason he had to do that was that Mike Gravel killed the bill.”

In 1980, a new lands bill, less favorable to Gravel and the Alaskan interests he was representing, passed over his objections and his filibuster. In this instance, as in his biggest legislative achievement — pushing the Alaska pipeline through the Senate — Gravel took a stand that might trouble potential backers in his current presidential bid.

The passage of the lands bill was widely believed to be the reason for Gravel’s loss in the 1980 Democratic Senate primary to Clark Gruening, the grandson of Ernest. After his loss, Gravel tried to go back to being a businessman, at least for the first decade or so. He did some consulting. He had a stockbroker’s license. There were dabblings in real estate. He had a condo business that went bankrupt; it was undercapitalized, he says, and there was a lawsuit. There was another lawsuit over a business deal, in which he represented himself against predecessors of the Carlyle Group, the well-connected and controversial private equity firm that has counted among its employees and investors members of the Bush and bin Laden families and has owned defense and communications companies.

Then in 1989 he scaled back his less-than-gung-ho pursuit of money and returned to his original passion. He started to get interested in politics again and in an idea that had always interested him: national referenda. He wanted to turn the American people into one massive legislative body 300 million legislators strong. Over the period of a decade he researched the concept of the “national initiative.” He drafted a law and created three interlocking nonprofit groups, Direct Democracy, Philadelphia II and the Democracy Foundation, to work on it. The National Initiative is also the idea that prompted his run for presidency.

“In order to get it enacted, a friend of mine suggested, ‘Gravel, you’ve got to run for president.’ I was not interested at first,” Gravel says. “And then I realized that this could be an opportunity to make it known, so I told friends that I was running for president, and they were all excited … But I didn’t really think I could win. Around January of ’06, I was looking at the other candidates, and I started to say, ‘I don’t know if I can win, but I sure can beat them.‘”

Gravel is running for president despite a post-Senate résumé, a financial history and a medical chart that might give a more introspective man pause. His single-minded pursuit of the National Initiative, as well as three surgeries in 2003, one to install rods in his back and two for neuropathy, drove him into bankruptcy in 2004. In his filing, Gravel listed $85,000 in credit card debt and virtually no assets beyond a car.

Most politicians would think twice about running for president in 2008 if they had declared bankruptcy four years earlier. This one, however, doesn’t mind discussing his bankruptcy in detail. “After [the National Initiative] had done a conference, raised some money for that, didn’t have enough money, I started using credit cards. I had about five, six credit cards. So when I really had a bad year healthwise, there was concern about my wife, because she might be liable for what had occurred, and it was all done for the National Initiative. And she said, ‘Well, maybe you should think about bankruptcy.’” Gravel had watched one of his business concerns go bankrupt two decades before. “I had been there. I didn’t want to mess with that again. And then I thought about it: ‘My God, isn’t this interesting? I’m going to get these six credit card companies who have been predators on normal people. I’m going to get them to contribute to the National Initiative.’ And I filed bankruptcy just in a heartbeat, and that was it.”

“It will really disturb people on Wall Street,” he says, “when they see the president of the United States is less well off economically than Harry Truman. I’m my own man.”

Before the bankruptcy, he took no salary from the three nonprofits. Afterward, the boards of the groups decided that he should, if only to provide his wife some security, and a donor contributed about half of the $304,000 the groups decided Gravel was owed — $76,000 for each of four years. Much of the money Gravel received has been lent to his presidential campaign. Which is, in a way, fitting, since the campaign has been pursuing ideas just as quixotic as the National Initiative.

Many planks in the Gravel platform would probably make lefty hearts flutter. He is anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights and pro-marijuana legalization. He wants U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

But Gravel also favors some conservative positions, like school vouchers. Notably, he’s enamored of an idea more closely associated with right-wing dreamers than putatively populist liberals. Gravel backs his own version of the so-called FairTax Plan, which would replace the income tax with the ultimate in regressive taxes, a nationwide sales tax.

On the other hand, there’s the law he first hinted at during the debate, which would make it a felony for the commander in chief, meaning President Bush, to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. He plans to officially introduce his proposed law at a press conference on Monday, May 14, and acts as if he believes this will be the decisive stroke in ending the war. It will “get Bush to the wall,” he says.

“It’s the only way you’re going to get out of Iraq in the next six months if you want to … George Bush said that he’s not going to get out of Iraq until his term is over. The members of Congress — they don’t understand English? Pelosi doesn’t understand English? Reid doesn’t understand English? ‘Oh, we can persuade the president.’ My God, they don’t even know the man! They don’t understand him! And they’re trying to offer leadership to address that situation? And then the whole talk about impeachment is a herring at this time — it’s tactically not the thing to do. The thing to do is to just put a law down, put your marker down, get it passed — and you can get it passed — and that’s what I’ll outlaw, the tactics for that. You can get it passed. And once they get it passed, hey, George Bush isn’t going to want to go to jail. And that’s what’s involved.”

A former senator who once displayed flashes of political cunning must know there won’t be much congressional enthusiasm for this law. Yet to hear him talk about the event he’s holding May 14 to officially announce it, you’d swear he was doing more than grandstanding, that he believes wishing will make it so. Impeachment is pie in the sky, he says, just a meaningless, pointless distraction by people who aren’t very good strategists — but turning Bush into a felon overnight will be easy.

Gravel’s political judgment is demonstrably fallible. No one who hopes to be president should speak approvingly of Lyndon LaRouche, even if the praise is heavily qualified and the candidate is only talking about maglev trains. Gravel’s blinkered devotion to his direct-democracy idea has also led to at least one public embarrassment. In 2003, he spoke to a conference cosponsored by the Barnes Review, a magazine devoted in part to Holocaust denial, as was the conference. Gravel, however, has repeatedly denied that he had any knowledge that this was the case and said he was there solely to speak on behalf of his own cause. On Wednesday, Washington Jewish Week reported that Gravel spoke before the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington and told them he had been invited to the conference again in 2006 and declined, telling organizer Willis Carto that Carto was as “nutty as a loon.”

But Gravel’s quixotic and combative attitude has also worked for him, as he proved at the first debate. Painting the other Democrats as dangerous warmongers got him some attention; it drew supporters and the campaign’s first real infusion of cash. Ben Duffy, who started the Web site Students for Gravel after seeing the debate, freely admits that he had no idea who Gravel was before that. But, Duffy says, “when I saw Gravel and I saw him speaking, I was actually motivated for the first time in a couple years … He doesn’t do that political wishy-washy thing. He doesn’t try to appeal to every demographic, and it’s very easy to see his stance on the issues. He’s not your typical politician.”

Gravel’s willingness to not be wishy-washy, and his memorable performance in the first debate, may also be the reason he was just added to the roster for the second Democratic presidential debate. Gravel can still be seen on YouTube grousing about his exclusion, but as of May 1 it was determined that he would be permitted to join the other Democrats onstage in New Hampshire on June 3.

Pollster John Zogby says he believes it’s too early for Gravel to see a real uptick in his poll numbers. But he thinks that Gravel, after making an impression in South Carolina, might find his way out of the basement. Zogby believes Gravel can take support from Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, before this the Democrats’ official fringe candidate, and will draw as well upon those who had been waiting for former Vice President Al Gore to enter the race. Ultimately, Zogby says, Gravel can pull perhaps 3 to 5 percent of the vote.

“He got the coverage and he got the buzz,” Zogby says, “and there is an element within the Democratic Party of likely voters who subscribe to what can be best described as what is a Mexican peasant revolutionary slogan: ‘Down with whoever’s up!’ And that’s Mike Gravel.”

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

Nicolle Wallace’s Palin lesson: Make better stunt Veep picks

A running mate should be prepared, and maybe not about to be indicted (according to rumors)

  • more
    • All Share Services

Nicolle Wallace's Palin lesson: Make better stunt Veep picksNicolle Wallace (Credit: ABC)

“Game Change” is a movie about how longtime Republican Party communications hack Nicolle Wallace and longtime Republican Party campaign hack Steve Schmidt actually have souls, and brains, and hence feel quite bad for accidentally being responsible for the creation of Sarah Palin, national monster. (Neither felt any qualms about working to get the most irresponsible warmonger currently serving in the Senate elected president, but Sarah Palin was nuts!)

So Wallace, following a 92nd Street Y panel last night, said this:

“There will be pressure to elevate a woman but there will be an equal amount of pressure to pick someone who is prepared,” Wallace said.

And then she said this:

Wallace flagged one female official in particular who she thinks would be a good choice this year.

“Nikki Haley — she’s great,” she said. “She’s the most effective surrogate Romney has.”

If the Sarah Palin problem was a problem of preparation and vetting, Haley … might present some issues? Specifically an odd and mostly unsubstantiated sex scandal and also these rumors that she might at any moment be indicted on tax charges. The tax thing might be bullshit and the affair story was the product of a self-promoting creep but they’re “out there,” as they say.

More important, Haley has been governor of South Carolina since January of 2011. As in very slightly longer than one year. And slightly less time being a governor than Sarah Palin had in 2008. It’s almost as if Wallace is making a pick not based on the principle of Who Would Be Best For the Nation but on demographics and optics?

Wallace also apparently suggested Carly Fiorina, which, lol. Romney/Ex-CEO who famously received a giant golden parachute when she was forced out of her company 2012, everyone! Just the ticket for the new economy.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Sarah Palin’s Hollywood ending

HBO's "Game Change" presents Palin as simply a bumbling Tina Fey -- and misses the real story of the 2008 campaign

  • more
    • All Share Services

Sarah Palin's Hollywood endingJulianne Moore as Sarah Palin in HBO's "Game Change" (Credit: HBO Films)

HBO’s “Game Change,” airing this Saturday, is not actually an adaption of the book “Game Change,” by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. It is “Sarah Palin Goes Rogue,” the movie, with a couple of anecdotes borrowed from the notoriously gossipy account of the 2008 election as a whole. (Or, arguably, it’s an adaptation of Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe’s “Sarah From Alaska.”)

That is sort of a shame. The Palin thing is the most heavily over-covered story line of the entire 2008 campaign, so focusing on it might be totally logical from a marketing perspective, but it’s unfortunate from an artistic one. The film re-creates various moments of YouTube campaign ephemera very well — remember when that old white lady called Obama an Arab and McCain looked uncomfortable? When it takes us behind closed doors, it’s to witness scenes any moderately close observer of the election and its aftermath could’ve dreamed up him- or herself. It might have been fun to see a TV movie about the Democratic primary fight; the personality clashes of the disastrous Clinton campaign would have made for entertaining television, and Mark Penn is surely a creature crying out for a grotesque Emmy-winning portrayal by, say, Paul Giamatti.

Instead, McCain has won the nomination three-and-a-half minutes into the film. Soon we’re watching Julianne Moore watch Tina Fey on TV. You remember the “SNL” sketches making fun of Palin, right? In case you don’t, “Game Change” airs lengthy chunks from most of them. It also has tons of actual footage from CNN and MSNBC and Fox News, and it re-creates debates and speeches and the Couric interview and the Charlie Gibson interview and a bunch of other things you saw either live or on YouTube when they happened.

Moore’s performance is not just fair but maybe even flattering. (For one thing, she doesn’t hit those flat upper Midwest vowels as gratingly as the real Palin.) Woody Harrelson plays strategist Steve Schmidt — the film’s protagonist — as a grizzled, “too old for this shit” campaign veteran called back to the trail against his better judgment. Jamey Sheridan is given barely anything to do as Mark Salter, McCain’s “conscience.” Salter, the primary author of his “Maverick” mythos, is limited, after the Palin selection, to making a hilariously over-telegraphed face of concern as everyone else in the war room applauds her first speech.

But the film is about Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace because they were pretty clearly Halperin and Heilemann’s primary sources, and we watch them become horrified by the depths of Sarah Palin’s ignorance at exactly the same time as everyone else in America became horrified by her ignorance.

Because it’s Hollywood, there’s very little politics in the film’s depiction of politics. Policies are simply things for Sarah Palin to write on note cards and not memorize. Operatives confidently declare, in faux Sorkin-ese patter, that if this or that meaningless decision is made, it means “we’ll lose by five.”

There is a sheen of faux cynicism (McCain swears like a sailor!) but it masks complete naiveté: Everyone is basically honorable and decent. Nicolle Wallace — a member of the Bush administration communications team — is sincerely alarmed at the prospect of someone as dangerously ignorant as Sarah Palin in the White House. On election night, she breaks down in tears as she admits to Schmidt that … she didn’t vote. They embrace.

The film subscribes to the simplest theory of Sarah Palin: That she is childlike, vain and incredibly ignorant but also an essentially decent person and wonderful mother. The moments that come closest to “unfair” — Sarah Palin doesn’t know that the head of Great Britain’s government is the prime minister, not the queen — are basically plausible. This isn’t Andrew Sullivan’s conniving, dangerous pathological liar. It’s an overwhelmed working mother whose most unhinged moments are explained by a crash diet. Her convention speech is largely stripped of its snarling attack lines, imagining a world in which it appealed to “the base” because of Palin’s heartfelt commitment to special-needs children and not because she was very good at saying mean things about Obama. (The film actually repeats the bullshit story that her teleprompter broke midway through, and she kept going.) Even when the film has her take a major heel turn — “if I am single-handedly carrying this campaign, I am gonna do what I want!” — after “winning” her debate with Joe Biden (played by video footage of Joe Biden), she is still basically an innocent seduced by the adoration of riled-up crowds and national attention. (Todd Palin barely does anything.)

The constant use of actual news footage adds a bit of verisimilitude but also constantly raises the question of why this lightly fictionalized version of the election actually needs to exist. “Game Change” is not really for serious political junkies, who remember all the stuff that did happen and will scoff at the stuff that didn’t. (At one point, John McCain answers his ringing iPhone in the middle of the night. He used a BlackBerry, HBO.) But if casually politically involved people want to see their assumptions about Sarah Palin reinforced, well, there are still those “SNL” sketches.

In the end, the Republican operatives who foisted Sarah Palin on an unprepared nation are rightly horrified that they created a monster, but at no point does anyone act concerned that their actual candidate was himself an angry, warmongering old crank with extremely fungible principles. Sure, Sarah Palin didn’t know what the Fed did. Do we have any proof John McCain knew what it should’ve done? Maybe everyone actually was totally unfair to poor Sarah Palin.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Baseless Condi Rice speculation making a comeback

Updated: To celebrate its return, a brief history of this variety of pundit fantasy writing

  • more
    • All Share Services

Baseless Condi Rice speculation making a comebackCondoleezza Rice (Credit: Reuters)

[UPDATED BELOW] Joseph Curl, former White House correspondent for the Washington Times, is bringing me back to the good old days of 2006 in his latest opinion column for the conservative paper. It’s a breathless report that Condoleezza Rice will seek the vice presidency, and it’s a classic of the genre.

Any amateur can speculate that Chris Christie will enter the presidential race, or posit a Mike Bloomberg third-party run, or imagine Hillary Clinton launching a primary challenge against Barack Obama. After all, those three have actually won elections and expressed political ambitions. It takes a real pro to decide to build buzz around someone who not only hasn’t ever run for anything, but who’s never expressed a desire to run for anything.

Rice, the national security advisor in George W. Bush’s first presidential term and secretary of state in his second, is currently a professor at Stanford with the requisite right-wing think tank fellowship. She has not said or done anything “political” in years. But Curl has been hearing things!

America’s first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.

After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting “antsy” to get back into the political game. “She’s ready to go,” said one top source.

Oh, a month-long tour in support of her book about her time in the Bush administration! She must be running for vice president, along with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Scott McClellan and George W. Bush.

There’s more. (And not just the part where Curl calls Rice “a spicy Rice dish” and waxes fetishistic about “her guns” being “a match for those of our first lady Michelle Obama.”)

Plus, her selection would be a giant chess move to counter the expected replacement of Vice President Joseph R. Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sure, the White House denies and denies, but that should really make any political watcher more suspicious. One White House insider even told me that the position swap was the only reason Mrs. Clinton joined the administration in the first place.

Curl has so many inside scoops packed into this column! I had no idea that our first presidential running mate swap since Ford’s 1976 campaign was basically a foregone conclusion and not just a weird Beltway journalist fantasy! But yes, I can see why the still  un-chosen GOP candidate would definitely be looking pretty closely at Rice — who’s been strongly making the case for her selection by not explicitly denying interest in the position — in case Obama replaces Biden with Clinton, which he will surely do.

The column gets worse (“Funny thing is, she is, unlike Barack Obama, an ‘American black’”) but that’s not really important. What’s important is exploring how someone like Condoleezza Rice ends up a perennial name on the fantasy ticket list.

Rice has been a subject of these columns since 2005, when she became Bush’s second secretary of state, and the White House tasked communications operative Jim Wilkinson — previously known best for inventing the false story of Jessica Lynch* — with getting Rice (and her boss) some much-needed positive press. Wilkinson did his job beautifully (remember when Rice’s knee-high boots were a topic of actual serious news coverage for weeks?) and Rice began receiving the “rock star” treatment.

In the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, author of the 2007 Rice bio “The Confidante,” summarized the exact moment of the birth of the presidential speculation:

In March 2005, before Rice sat for an interview with the Washington Times, Wilkinson slipped a note to the editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, suggesting that she be asked whether she would consider running for president. It was an audacious proposal — she had been secretary for only six weeks — but such speculation would bolster Rice’s image as a leader. (Wilkinson and Blankley said they do not recall the incident, but others present said they saw Wilkinson’s note.)

Oh, the Washington Times.

Shortly thereafter, Dick Morris wrote a book claiming — nay, insisting — that 2008 would be “Condi vs. Hillary.”

As Iraq descended into a violent civil war in 2006, Rice-for-president buzz bizarrely grew. There was enough of a false grass-roots movement for a paint-by-numbers AP trend piece with a silly nickname and everything. Tim Russert asked her point blank. As always, she said no in no uncertain terms.

Then, of course, everyone began to speculate that she’d be McCain’s running mate. Robert Novak claimed as much on Fox. Dan Senor said she was pushing for the pick on some Sunday show. Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a Talk of the Town piece on the subject! McCain and Rice both finally denied “reports” that she was angling for the spot on the ticket.

Now, I guess, it’s time to start up the rumor mill anew.

But before you put pen to paper on that column about how a Gingrich-Rice ticket would surely win moderate women in Ohio, consider this: In addition to the fact that she’s always denied wanting the job, and in addition to the fact that she was an unmitigated failure in the Bush administration, downplaying terrorism as a priority prior to 9/11 and selling the public on the Iraq invasion with untruths, Condi Rice is pro-choice.

*Update: Jon Krakauer recently rescinded his claim that Wilkinson, then a communications aide to General Tommy Franks, was responsible for the initial false Washington Post report on Lynch’s apparent heroics before her capture. Though Wilkinson was obviously involved in the PR campaign surrounding Lynch’s rescue and return to the U.S., he apparently isn’t responsible for falsifying her actions or leaking that false story to the press.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Breitbart shock: Obama was in same place at same time as New Black Panthers

Right-wingers once again try to connect the president to a fringe group of laughable conservative boogeymen

  • more
    • All Share Services

Breitbart shock: Obama was in same place at same time as New Black PanthersMembers of the New Black Panther Party, including, Divine Allah, left, arrive for funeral services for 13-year-old shooting victim, Tamrah Leonard, at the Friendship Baptist Church in Trenton, N.J., Saturday, June 13, 2009. (Credit: AP/Mike Derer)

Andrew Breitbart’s loud, dumb BigGovernment site has a loud, dumb story about how Barack Obama “appeared and marched with the New Black Panther Party in 2007.” The occasion was the 42nd anniversary of the march from Selma, Alabama, and in addition to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also there, along with dozens of civil rights era luminaries and thousands of other people because it was a massive annual celebration and not actually an Obama campaign event.

The New Black Panther Party is a cartoonish fringe group of a couple guys who play “’60s radical” dress-up and say mean things about whitey for Fox cameras in order to scare old white people. They have been explicitly rejected by the old Black Panther Party. For some reason, various conservatives have dedicated themselves to proving that this weird, marginal group of Nation of Islam cast-offs is somehow supported by or deeply connected to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration in particular, because, you know, Eric Holder and Barack Obama, those are two guys who very obviously share the values of extremist anti-white proponents of racial separation.

So Breitbart “proves” something or other about the essential anti-white racistness of the Obama campaign by noting that members of the inane New Black Panther Party were spotted by cameras near Obama, at various times, and also NBPP head Malik Zulu Shabazz spoke at the event.

(Brietbart goes on to publish two pictures of the event despite the photographer withholding permission, because “The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day.” Good luck with that argument in court?)

Andrew C. McCarthy gleefully endorses Breitbart’s story in a breathless post at the National Review’s The Corner:

This is a shocking story, and a breathtaking indictment of the mainstream media which went out of its way to avoid vetting Obama as a candidate — and to make sure anyone who tried to do due diligence got no sunshine. A candidate who chose to appeared in the company of, say, the KKK, would have provoked relentlessly hostile media coverage and, in short order, have been marginalized as disqualified to hold responsible elective office.

If only the media had reported that some fringe weirdos also participated in this event that both Democratic candidates and thousands of other people participated in, and then the fringe weirdos sort of followed Obama around for a while. That would’ve opened America’s eyes! (I mean the media besides NPR, which did report that the NBPP was there.)

Here’s the bit of this sad, desperate reach that is the saddest and most desperate: “Andrew further reminds us that, in March 2008, the Obama campaign website posted an endorsement of Obama by the New Black Panther Party.” Whoa, did they really? Shocking if true! It is, of course, not true. It was a user-generated blog post on the Obama campaign site that the campaign removed as soon as they became aware of its existence. Because websites do not “post” things to themselves, generally, McCarthy’s statement can’t even be charitably described as technically accurate. It’s just a lie.

A random stupid incorrect Breitbart smear is worth paying attention to only to the extent that the smear threatens to bubble up to the more reputable conservative press, or Fox, or Republican elected officials. The McCarthy endorsement means keep an eye on this one!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Palins give free publicity to book bashing Palins

Joe McGinniss' "The Rogue" gets a big marketing boost from its subject's classic (and predictable) overreaction

  • more
    • All Share Services

Palins give free publicity to book bashing PalinsSarah Palin

Here, according to the National Enquirer, are the shocking revelations in Joe McGinniss’ new book about Sarah Palin, “The Rogue”:

  • She has done drugs.
  • She had sex with a basketball player before she married Todd.
  • She is mean and petty.
  • She is a bad mother.
  • She had an affair after she married Todd.

There is also, obviously, some stuff about Trig’s birth, but I have not yet read the book, so I couldn’t tell you how far down the rabbit hole that goes.

Here’s my reaction to those revelations: Sarah Palin is a person! She’s done drugs and pissed people off and slept with people, like 90 percent of American humans. If Sarah Palin was smart she’d dismiss the book with a chuckle, say nobody’s perfect, laugh off the “gossip,” and move on.

Sarah Palin might not be smart.

The Palins always prefer grand self-pitying martyrdom to quiet dignity, of course, which is why picking on them can be so profitable: They will always respond, and always help you drum up more publicity for your Palin-attacking venture. Instead of depriving the book of oxygen, they launched a multimedia attack on Joe McGinniss before he’d finished the first draft, and what they accomplished was … giving him more material and ensuring that even more breathless anticipation awaited the book’s release.

Now that the book’s rollout is underway, the Palins might as well get paid for their marketing efforts. Todd Palin angrily denounced it, again accusing McGinniss of having a “creepy obsession” with Sarah Palin. Oooh, it’s so creeeepy to write an unauthorized biography of a prominent public figure, right?

How bad did the Palins allowed themselves to be trolled? Sarah Palin’s people released a statement on behalf of Brad Hanson, Todd Palin’s former business partner, with whom Sarah Palin is alleged to have carried on an extramarital affair, some years back. The statement is a blanket denial, but what does having the supposed beau directly address the press accomplish, exactly? It just drives more interest in the book’s salacious, shocking revelations about the secret life of Sarah Palin. This guy, of all guys, should be kept out of it.

I am sure that Todd and everyone else is very personally pissed off that McGinniss went to Wasilla, talked to a bunch of people who hate them, and published a book full of stories about how bad and awful they are, but blowing up publicly just sends the message that there’s stuff in the book worth getting worked up about.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 602 in 2008 Elections