2008 Elections

What you missed while watching the new “Bionic Woman”

Salon watches the latest (1970s TV edition) Democratic presidential debate so you don't have to: A better, stronger, faster Clinton, a kung fu Kucinich and more.

  • more
    • All Share Services

What you missed while watching the new

0 minutes. It’s fall premiere week at the National Broadcasting Co., and the Bionic Woman is back. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is dressed in a smart suit the color of a rusting rose, with blond hair so textured it puts Lindsay Wagner to shame. Clinton stands onstage in Hanover, N.H., with seven other Democratic presidential candidates for the latest debate. She is ahead in the polls and comfortable in the knowledge that she is better, stronger, faster.

1 minute. MSNBC’s host for this debate is Tim Russert, and he shoots the first question to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. What will you do if you take office in 2009 and there are still 100,000 troops in Iraq? Can you promise that you would keep no troops in Iraq by 2013?

2 minutes. Obama is vague. He says he would start pulling troops out right away, but he won’t commit to a 2013 deadline for total withdrawal. He would meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He would leave enough troops to protect the U.S. Embassy, safeguard civilians and carry out unspecified “counterterrorism activities.” He tries to swipe at Clinton, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. “Had my judgment prevailed back in 2002, we wouldn’t be in this predicament,” he says.

3 minutes. But Obama can’t touch her. She survived the 1990s. She is married to the Six Million Dollar Man. They have the technology. They can rebuild themselves. “I agree with Barack,” she says. “I think it’s very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting.” Having embraced her opponent, she has defeated him.

4 minutes. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is better prepared. He tries a new approach. “I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq,” he says. “And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war.”

6 minutes. Russert tries to let New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson speak, but bionic Clinton interrupts. “Tim, could I just clarify,” she says. She explains that the “combat missions” would be limited to counterterrorism against al-Qaida. “The vast majority of our combat troops should be out.”

7 minutes. But Edwards won’t let up. He interrupts her interruption. He is going off script. He is actually taking on the Bionic Woman. “The difference is really very simple,” he shoots back. “I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq.” What’s going on? There is only one answer. Edwards must be Buck Rogers. He kind of looks like Buck Rogers. Could it be the, er, hair?

13 minutes. Dennis Kucinich, in the role of Caine from “Kung Fu,” says he can pull the troops out of Iraq in three months, even though all the military generals say it will take more than a year. But time is not a factor for a master of martial arts. “By April of 2007,” Kucinich says. “And you can mark that on your calendars.” Russert points out that April 2007 happened five months ago. “Make that 2009,” Kucinich says. “I’m ready to be president today.” As Master Kan teaches, time is a grasshopper. It jumps around.

15 minutes. It’s a full moon outside, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel appears agitated. He is upset that Clinton voted Wednesday for a Senate measure to urge Bush to declare Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Gravel sees this as an invitation for Bush to attack Iran. “I am ashamed of you, Hillary,” Gravel says, sounding a bit like an angry Boss Hogg from the “Dukes of Hazzard.” “You’re not going to get another shot at this because what happens if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it.”

17 minutes. Clinton deploys her most potent weapon, the bionic giggle. “Huh huh huh huh, ha ha ha ha,” she laughs, appearing warm and likable while at the same time dismissing Gravel as a crazy man. “I don’t know where to start,” she says. Then she explains that Wednesday’s vote will allow the United States to sanction Iranians who are involved in attacks on American troops in Iraq. “My understanding of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism,” she says, before pivoting to an attack on President Bush. “We wouldn’t be where we are today if the Bush administration hadn’t outsourced our diplomacy with respect to Iran.” Her powers prevail.

20 minutes. Now Russert tries to take on Clinton. He asks her a hypothetical. “If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?” Clinton does not answer hypotheticals. “Tim, I think that’s one of those hypotheticals,” she says. Russert protests, “It’s not a hypothetical, Senator.” They go back and forth like this for a while. In the end, Clinton doesn’t answer the question, and the other candidates follow her lead. They make bland statements about diplomacy and the importance of Israel.

25 minutes. The hypothetical question gets around to John “Buck Rogers” Edwards, and he seizes the moment. Following Gravel’s lead, he suggests that Clinton’s vote Wednesday on Iran empowers Bush to invade the country. “I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran,” says Edwards. “You can’t even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.” Clinton does not get a chance to respond. Edwards is having a good night.

37 minutes. Commercial break. Over on NBC, the new “Bionic Woman” television show is playing. It looks far more entertaining. The lead actress is a brunette who looks much less like Clinton than Wagner did in the 1970s version of the show. Nevertheless, having committed to the bionic Clinton motif, this article will proceed apace.

40 minutes. “And we are back,” Russert says. He addresses a question to Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who for the purposes of this article is the father from “Happy Days.” Russert asks why Dodd released a statement saying he “can understand” the reason that President Bush would want Clinton to be the nominee. After the question is asked, Clinton deploys her bionic giggle off-camera.

41 minutes. Dodd won’t answer the question. This is odd. What is he afraid of? Did the bionic giggle get to him? He makes a bad joke about how someone once mistook him for CNN’s Anderson Cooper because they both have white hair. Then he finally says, “I was being somewhat facetious.”

52 minutes. Russert asks Gravel how he could be trusted as president if he has declared bankruptcy twice, once for a condo business and once for himself. “I will tell you, Donald Trump has been bankrupt 100 times,” Gravel responds. As for his personal bankruptcy, Gravel says he was proud to stick his credit card companies with $90,000 in unpaid dept. “They deserved it,” he says.

57 minutes. A question goes to all of the candidates. Would it be appropriate for a schoolteacher to read a story about a gay couple to their children in second grade? “Yes, absolutely,” says Edwards. “What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day.” Obama agrees. So does Clinton.

62 minutes. Another commercial break. Hopefully no children in second grade are watching. This time MSNBC shows an advertisement for Cialis, a pill that promises an erection at any point between 30 minutes and 36 hours after consumption. Sometimes erections may last for four hours or cause temporary loss of vision.

66 minutes. We’re back with questions about government entitlements. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden — an older version of Hawkeye from “M*A*S*H”? — says he would be willing to raise taxes on those who make more than $97,500 a year to pay for Social Security and Medicare. “I’m probably the only one up here who’s going to say that, but the truth of the matter is, you stated it,” Biden says. “You’re either going to cut benefits, or you’re going to go ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.”

69 minutes. Bionic Clinton is certainly not going to say that. In fact, she won’t say much of anything. She says we as a country have to talk about “fiscal responsibility” first. Russert asks if she will at least put a tax increase on the table for consideration. “I’d take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility,” she says. It’s not clear what she means. But that’s the thing about her bionic powers. She can say vague things that sound sort of meaningful.

70 minutes. Obama at this point represents the “Greatest American Hero,” a clumsy, well-meaning figure who is not exactly on his game tonight. He tries to draw a distinction with Clinton. “Everything should be on the table,” he says. Upon further reflection, this means pretty much the same thing as putting nothing on the table. But Obama does say raising taxes on the wealthy may be preferable to other solutions, including privatization of Social Security.

82 minutes. All the candidates say they don’t want to decrease the drinking age from 21 to 18, except for Boss Hogg and Caine from “Kung Fu.” “Anybody that could go fight and die for this country should be able to drink,” says Gravel. “Of course, they should be able to drink at age 18 and they should be able to vote at age 16,” says Kucinich, who must be really popular in high schools.

101 minutes. Russert asks a hypothetical question, which he said was originally asked by someone else whom he does not specify. Assume the United States captures the No. 3 guy in al-Qaida, who has information about a bomb that is about to go off in an American city. “Don’t we have the responsibility to beat it out of him?”

102 minutes. One by one, the candidates say they do not approve of torture. Clinton even breaks her no-hypothetical pledge to answer the question. “It cannot be American policy, period,” she says of torture. But Russert has a trick up his sleeve. It turns out that it was Bill Clinton who had originally posed this hypothetical, including the limited exception for beating up prisoners if there was a clear need. “Well, I’ll talk to him later,” Clinton deadpans. She is good. Bionic good.

116 minutes. The last question of the night is a baseball question. Yankees or Red Sox? Dodd, Richardson, Gravel and Edwards all say the Red Sox, which is the right call in New Hampshire. Clinton and Biden say the Yankees. Obama says the Chicago White Sox. Kucinich says the Cleveland Indians. Russert asks Clinton whom she would root for if the Yankees played the Chicago Cubs, since she was born in Chicago. For the first time all night, her bionic powers are stretched to the breaking point. “Well, I would probably have to alternate sides,” she says. Russert gets the final word. “Spoken like a true sports fan,” he says.

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