2008 Elections

What you missed while watching “Deal or No Deal”

Salon watches the third GOP debate so you don't have to: God frowns on Giuliani, Romney does weird math on Iraq, Thompson proposes a Bush morality tour, and more.

  • more
    • All Share Services

What you missed while watching

0 minutes. CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer, with his signature no-personality style, welcomes everyone to St. Anselm College. His voice is deep, without natural inflection, mechanical. His tie is powder blue. He asks each candidate to introduce himself with “one short sentence.”

2 minutes. “My name is Thompson, Tommy Thompson,” says the former Wisconsin governor, in his best James Bond impersonation. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is worth $350 million and does not live in your neighborhood, introduces himself as a “neighbor.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee apologizes to the crowd for his hometown, Hope, Ark., which birthed Bill Clinton. “All I ask is give me one more chance.” People laugh.

4 minutes. The first question goes to Romney. It is concise. “Was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?” Romney won’t answer. He calls the question “a non sequitur.” He also calls it “a null set,” which is a term from mathematical theory that means something complicated involving X, if X is a measurable space, and the “sigma ideal.” Instead, Romney attacks Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid for saying the war is lost.

5 minutes. Undeterred, a reporter from the Manchester Union Leader asks Romney the same question again. “Was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?” Romney says “null set” again, maybe with more feeling this time. Then he says, “That I think is an unreasonable hypothetical.”

6 minutes. The question is asked a third time, but now to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. “Absolutely the right thing to do,” Giuliani says without hesitation. Ouch. That must hurt for Romney.

10 minutes. Arizona Sen. John McCain is asked what will happen if generals report that the surge of troops in Iraq is failing. McCain says he met this morning with the family of a fallen soldier. Then he attacks Hillary Clinton for saying Iraq is “Mr. Bush’s war.” “I didn’t say that Bosnia, our intervention there, was President Clinton’s war,” McCain explains. This is how it is done. If asked a tough question, treat Democrats like pincushions.

14 minutes. Republican gadfly Ron Paul says this about Iraq: “We’re not making progress there and we should come home.” The audience applauds. Huh? Who did CNN invite to this debate? They are Republicans, right? Something is afoot. The liberal media may be to blame.

17 minutes. Machine Blitzer malfunctions. After Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback finishes talking about the threat posed by Iran, Wolf says, “Thank you, Congressman.” “Senator, if you don’t mind,” Brownback corrects. “Excuse me — Senator,” Blitzer offers.

21 minutes. California Rep. Duncan Hunter says he might “authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons” for a preemptive strike against Iran to destroy nuclear centrifuges. This would be more scary if Hunter had any real chance of becoming president.

22 minutes. The microphones are squelching. Rigid Blitzer says, “If you are hearing some sounds out there, it’s lightning.” Lightning, of course, is not the sound. Thunder is the sound. But lightning can cause electronics to belch noise. Blitzer, who appears to be built partly from electronics, is an authority.

25 minutes. The question of immigration goes to Romney, who was recently attacked by McCain for criticizing President Bush’s compromise plan without offering an alternative. “Well, he’s my friend,” Romney says of McCain. “He campaigned for me two times. I consider him a friend.” This is hard to believe, as these men have hired people to destroy each other. They are friends like the two guys in “Spy vs. Spy” are friends. Just a couple weeks ago, McCain accused Romney of owning “a small varmint gun” and employing Guatemalans. This is not Romney’s best debate performance.

35 minutes. Blitzer asks if any of the Republicans onstage disagree with the claim that English should be the official language in the United States. McCain is the only one to raise his hand. “I would like to remind you that we made treaties with Native Americans such as the Navajos in my state, where we respect their sovereignty and they use their native language,” he says. “It’s no big deal.” He stands alone.

40 minutes. God does not appear to be happy with Giuliani. When the former mayor tries to answer a question about a Catholic bishop who compared him to a biblical betrayer of Christ, the lightning hits the sound system. Squiggly squelches. “That’s the lightning,” says Blitzer-bot. Giuliani smiles and points to the heavens. Romney and McCain edge away from him on the stage. He could be struck down at any minute.

42 minutes. Huckabee, who is a Baptist pastor, is asked to explain why he doesn’t believe in evolution. His answer is moving, eloquent and inclusive. “Let me be very clear. I believe there is a God. I believe there’s a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did it take, I don’t honestly know,” he says. “And I don’t think knowing that would make me a better president.” His pacing is perfect, yielding the loudest applause of the night. Huckabee may be one of the most talented Christian communicators to rise in America since Billy Graham. It’s a wonder that he gets so little support from the religious right.

48 minutes. Giuliani gets a question about global warming and his microphone briefly goes out again. There is a lesson here: If it is raining, do not walk next to Giuliani in an open field.

55 minutes. Huckabee reveals the darker side of his faith. Answering a question about gays in the military, he calls homosexuality an “attitude.” “It’s about conduct,” he says, endorsing the current policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly. “It’s not about attitude.”

59 minutes. The gays in the military question goes to McCain. He soars. “We have the best-trained, most professional, best equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country. And I’m proud of every one of them.” But McCain also says that the current policy, whose net effect is expelling gays for being gay, “is working.”

60 minutes.Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson is asked how he would employ President George W. Bush if he won the White House. “I certainly would not send him to the United Nations,” Thompson says. “I would put him out on a lecture series, talking to the youth of America about honesty, integrity, perseverance, passion.” He says this with a straight face. Former President Bush doing middle school talks about the Golden Rule.

67 minutes. Blitzer announces a break so chairs can be set up onstage. CNN cuts to Anderson Cooper and Larry King. Blah, blah. The Discovery Channel is showing a rerun of “Deadliest Catch.” It’s a good one. “Busted buoys, broken pots, and a blown engine have put the Northwestern more than a week behind schedule,” reads the teaser.

73 minutes. OK, we’re back. Everyone is in a chair. Brownback leans forward. Huckabee has two hands on one knee. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore has crossed his legs. A question from the audience: A woman describes how she lost her little brother, First Lt. Michael Joseph Cleary, in Iraq. She asks how the candidates would bring a resolution to the war and bring the soldiers home.

75 minutes.Hunter answers by talking about how his son is serving in the military. Brownback announces a new plan to partition the country. McCain, breaking format, leaves his chair to answer her question. He tells her, “This is long and hard and tough. But I think we can succeed. God bless you.” The camera cuts back and forth to the woman’s face. McCain is at his best when he is talking about the military. He has an authority and compassion that the others lack.

100 minutes. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo explains why Spanish speakers may soon destroy America, and why he would never advertise in his campaign for president in Spanish, which Romney does. “English is the language of this country,” he says. “We should not be ashamed of that.” Blitzer intervenes, “Sen. McCain, I’d like you to respond.”

101 minutes. “Muchas gracias,” says McCain.

116 minutes. Time is running out, so Hunter makes a last ditch attempt to draw blood. For no particular reason at all, he starts attacking the front-runners. “Governor Romney joined with Bill Clinton for the 1994 gun ban,” he says. “Mayor Giuliani stood with him at the White House for that … John McCain is standing strong with Ted Kennedy on this Kennedy-McCain-Bush border enforcement bill.” Then he moves in for the kill. “I think the guy who’s got the most influence right here with these three gentlemen is Ted Kennedy.” Kaboom!

117 minutes. Blitzer asks the three men to respond, but they decide not to. Romney talks about Reagan. Giuliani talks about Islamic terrorism. McCain talks about protecting the family. Hunter’s bomb ends up a dud.

120 minutes. The debate ends. Blitzer tries to do an impression of Mister Rogers. “This unfortunately is the time for us to say goodbye.” It falls flat. Not a big deal. Two hours is a long time to sit watching 10 Republicans in dark suits. And the Discovery Channel is about to debut a new episode of “Deadliest Catch.” “Greenhorns are put to the test as the Bering Sea’s harsh winter weather deteriorates,” reads the teaser. Sort of like the Republican debate. Only much cooler.

Michael Scherer is Salon's Washington correspondent. Read his other articles here.

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