2008 Elections

What you missed while watching “Ask a Ninja”

Salon watches the fourth Democratic presidential (YouTube) debate so you don't have to.

  • more
    • All Share Services

What you missed while watching

0 minutes. CNN host Anderson Cooper welcomes the candidates by admitting his anxiety. “This is something that we have never done before. What you are about to see is — well, it’s untried. We’re not exactly sure how it’s going to work. The candidates on the stage don’t know how it’s going to work either.” He goes on like this for a while. The questions will be asked by normal people over Web video, not by journalists. Democrats will be logging on to the internetting, surfing the series of tubes. Anything can happen.

2 minutes. To demonstrate the danger, Cooper shows some of the 3,000 video questions submitted via wide world web space. There are videos of a singing chicken lady, a kid with giraffes and flamingos, a screaming toddler. There is a guy who says Arnold Schwarzenegger is a cyborg who can stop nuclear war. Cooper tries to calm the viewing audience. “We all know that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a cyborg,” Cooper says, “so there is no need to waste time actually asking the candidates that question.” Huge relief.

5 minutes. Finally, the debate gets going. The first question comes from a guy named Zach in Utah. “What’s up?” virtual Zach says, before asking a good question. He essentially wants to know if any of the Democratic candidates will be any different from all the other pinhead politicians in Washington. “What’s going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we’re used to hearing?”

6 minutes. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., answers by reciting the empty platitudes we are used to hearing. “While hope and confidence and optimism are clearly very important, I think experience matters a great deal — the experience people bring to their candidacy, the ideas, the bold ideas that they’ve championed over the years.” Why not bring back the chicken lady? What about the screaming child? How do cyborgs stop nuclear war, anyway?

7 minutes. It’s platitude roll-call time. “People have an urgent desire for change in Washington,” says Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. “We are united for change,” says Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, mixes it up. His platitudes sound like Buddhist koans. “Strength through peace,” he says. “The science of human relations.”

11 minutes. A guy named Rob from Irvine, Calif., asks Clinton if she would call herself “liberal.” She answers with an eloquent and concise history of the word, from its 19th century roots to the current use by conservatives as a synonym for weakness and big government. “I consider myself a modern progressive,” she says.

12 minutes. Cooper turns to the malcontent standing at the right side of the stage. “Are you a liberal?” he asks. Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, dodges the question and decides to attack everyone else’s platitudes. “We’re not united,” he says to Clinton. “And I want to take on Barack Obama for a minute.” Gravel looks unhinged. Cooper cuts him off.

17 minutes. A guy named Will from Boston asks a question that he says is in the back of everyone’s head. “You know, in some people, it’s further back than others, collecting cobwebs.” Should African-Americans get reparations for slavery?

18 minutes. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., says no, but then speaks movingly about how racism continues to keep people in poverty. Cooper asks if anyone on the stage supports reparations. Only Kucinich steps forward, with another puzzler. “The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred,” he says. “It’s also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well.” Perhaps the impact was emotional.

22 minutes. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson finally gets asked a question. It’s about Hurricane Katrina, but as he answers, his earpiece — which he is wearing to listen to the YouTube videos — falls out of his ear. CNN refuses to cut to another angle, apparently reveling in the possibility that Schwarzenegger is not the only governor with wires that protrude from his head. “We have to make sure that a president cares,” Richardson says.

35 minutes. CNN cuts to a commercial break. The debates are sponsored by Coors, the beer company that usually creates ads featuring young men who ogle underdressed women with fake breasts. But tonight Coors is taking the high road. Some guy named Andy England appears on-screen to say, “We at Coors are as committed as you are to preventing underage drinking.” Apparently, Andy has low expectations of the American public.

39 minutes. We’re back. Richardson has fixed his earpiece. Gravel still looks ready to explode. Clinton appears youthful and vibrant in her pink jacket. Obama stands straight-backed. Edwards has been growing out his hair. It hangs over his forehead like a light and fluffy pancake. The message: See what happens when I don’t get expensive haircuts?

48 minutes. Another YouTube question: “I would like to know if the perception is true that the Democrats are putting politics before conscience,” says the mother of an American soldier in Iraq. “How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?”

49 minutes. Clinton explains how difficult it is for Democrats in Congress to force the president’s hand on Iraq. Then Kucinich comes in blazing. “The answer to your question, ma’am, is: Yes, it is politics,” he says. Then to prove that he is above politics he pulls out a cellphone and tells everyone to send a text message to the word P-E-A-C-E, or 73223, so his campaign can send messages back.

67 minutes. Richardson attacks “the senators” on the stage for wanting to leave any troops in Iraq. He wants to get all the troops out by the end of this year, about 10 months before the election. He wants to leave no “residual forces.”

68 minutes. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, is having none of it. “There is not a single military man in this audience who will tell this senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today,” he says, showing his perfect white teeth. “Let’s start telling the truth.” Clinton agrees with Biden. “It is time for us to admit that it’s going to be complicated,” she says.

70 minutes. Kucinich won’t stop. “Text peace,” he says. “And text 73223. Text peace.”

72 minutes. Another commercial break. The same empty rhetoric from the good people at Coors.

87 minutes. A YouTube snowman asks a question about global warming. Kucinich is still speaking in riddles. “We have to understand the connection between global warring and global warming,” he says.

96 minutes. Coors commercial, again.

100 minutes. The whole YouTube format is working. The questions are, on the whole, far more offbeat and interesting than in the other debates. Two women from Pennsylvania ask, “If you’re elected to serve, would you be willing to do this service for the next four years and be paid the national minimum wage?”

101 minutes. Gravel, who recently declared bankruptcy, says, “Oh yes.” Dodd says, “I have two young daughters who I’m trying to educate them. I don’t think I could live on the minimum wage.” Edwards, who is pretty rich, says, “Yes.” So does Clinton, who is also pretty rich. Obama admits the obvious. “Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money.” Richardson says, “Yes.” Biden, whose net worth is less than $150,000, says, “If I get a second job, I’d do it.” Kucinich says, “I would but I wouldn’t want to.” Wouldn’t it be wild if one of them is elected and has to honor these pledges?

115 minutes. Clinton says, “Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.” It is unclear whether she is including Gravel, who promptly launches into another rant. “The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man,” he fumes. “But the Clintons and the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council] sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street.”

124 minutes. The final question comes from Jason in Colorado, and it is a zinger. “I would like for each of you to look at the candidate to your left and tell the audience one thing you like and one thing you dislike about that particular candidate,” he says. “And remember, be honest.”

125 minutes. Gravel says he likes Dodd’s dad but not the bankers who fund his campaign. Dodd says he likes Edwards’ wife and family and has nothing negative to say. Edwards says he admires Clinton and her husband, but says, “I’m not sure about her pink coat.” Clinton laughs and threatens Edwards with a proportionate fashion advice response. “John, it’s a good thing we’re ending soon.”

126 minutes. Clinton declines to criticize Obama, and Obama returns the favor by saying, “I actually like Hillary’s jacket. I don’t know what’s wrong with it.” He says he likes Richardson’s commitment to public service, but has concerns about the governor’s affection for both the Yankees and the Red Sox, but not the White Sox. Richardson says he likes Biden’s commitment to public service and would make him secretary of state. Biden says to Kucinich, “I don’t like a damn thing about him.” But he is only kidding. “The best thing I like about you is your wife,” Biden says, and the CNN cameras cut to a quick shot of Kucinich’s young, tall, poised wife in the crowd. She is smiling.

127 minutes. Kucinich realizes there is no one on his left, and blames CNN. “They didn’t put anybody to the left of me. Think about it,” he says. Cooper can’t help himself. “I’m not sure it would be possible to find anybody,” he quips. Everyone laughs. The crowd applauds.

128 minutes. The fourth Democratic presidential debate comes to a close. It has all gone well. The intertubes held up their side of the bargain. Journalists will never outshine the whole of America when it comes to figuring out good questions. “All right,” says Cooper. “We’ll leave it at that.”

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