2008 Elections

Will Bill’s dough make trouble for Hillary?

Some big donors to the former president's philanthropy also donate to Hillary's campaign. His private fundraising could be costly to a next Clinton White House.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Will Bill's dough make trouble for Hillary?

If Bill Clinton goes back to the White House with a new title in January 2009, there will be more than one fundraising juggernaut living there. Since leaving office in 2001, the former president has vacuumed in hundreds of millions of dollars for his William J. Clinton Foundation. Though the former president has declined to reveal the identities of his individual donors, public records reviewed by Salon reveal a partial picture of corporate foundations and the foundations of a network of wealthy individuals that have long fueled the Clinton money machine. Some of those same individuals are now among the top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Bill Clinton’s profile and political power would, of course, make him an unprecedented spouse to a sitting president. He could wield significant sway over policy, perhaps becoming a transformative figure like Dick Cheney, who dramatically expanded the influence of the vice president’s role. That prospect raises the question of whether Bill Clinton’s financial activity, and a partial lack of transparency about it to date, could become a political liability for a Hillary Clinton administration.

Laws designed to minimize real or perceived influence peddling limit the activities of a sitting president. But campaign and election law attorneys say nothing prohibits Bill Clinton from continuing to accept big checks made out to him or his foundation, even if his wife is elected president. “I don’t know of any law that would restrict that,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. “The spouse is not exactly a federal employee.”

Experts say Bill Clinton’s role as first gentleman would be uncharted territory with regard to managing real or perceived conflicts of interest. “We have not had to confront these issues because we have not had spouses of presidents who have had independent professional lives,” said Jan Baran, the former general counsel for the Republican National Committee. “This guy is a former president. That is unique.”

Bill Clinton has said publicly he would keep raising money for his foundation if his wife were elected president. As a former president, Clinton has also padded his personal bank account with more than $41 million in speaking fees from appearances for major corporations and other organizations.

Both Clinton’s foundation and his wife’s campaign were difficult to engage for a response to this article. A Bill Clinton spokesman, who did not want his name used, said he did not know if his boss would continue to make paid speeches for his own income if his wife were in the White House.

But if Bill Clinton raises and makes money in 2009 the way he has in recent years, it will be at a blistering pace. He started his William J. Clinton Foundation in 1997 to fund the construction of his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. But the organization has since expanded to encompass an umbrella of nonprofit initiatives to fight HIV, assist developing countries and combat climate change. Donations have increased exponentially. He has accepted hundreds of millions in donations to date; tax records for 2005, the most recent available, show Clinton raised more than $80 million for his foundation in that year alone.

Foundations are not required by law to reveal the identities of donors, and the former president has resisted showing where the money for his is coming from. In late September, Clinton announced that if his wife were elected president, he would “feel constrained to have some greater disclosure” on prospective gifts made to his foundation after the 2008 elections. But past donors and donors making contributions up until the election would remain secret. Clinton has argued that foundations linked to other presidents enjoy similar anonymity. “Now, the people that have already given me money don’t think I should disclose it, unless there is some conflict of which I am aware, and there’s not,” Clinton told reporters at a press conference Sept. 27, during an invitation-only meeting of his Clinton Global Initiative in New York. “Because a lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously, and if they gave publicly then they would become the target for every other politician in America to hit on them for the rest of their lives,” he said. “And some of them are Republicans, and they may not want anybody to know they gave me money.”

Tax records of foundations affiliated with wealthy individuals and corporations shed light on donors who have given the Clinton Foundation nearly $36 million over the past several years. This data excludes donations made directly by individuals to the Clinton Foundation, which remain private.

The tax records show that the Walmart Foundation gave $1 million, and the foundation for the family that founded Walmart, the Walton Family Foundation, kicked in another $2 million. Six-figure contributors include the foundations of AT&T, Bank of America, Anheuser-Busch, and Ford Motor Co.

To fund his foundation, Bill Clinton has also tapped into a network of foundations of major Democratic donors, according to tax records reviewed by Salon. An example is the foundation of Philip Murphy, a longtime supporter of Democrats. Murphy is now national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee. Another example is the Jonathan M. Tisch Foundation, which has given the Clinton Foundation $114,000. Tisch, chairman and CEO of Loews Hotels, has been contributor to Democrats for years.

Some contributors to Bill Clinton’s foundation are also among Hillary Clinton’s top fundraisers. So-called bundlers — or “HillRaisers” in her case — gather big money for a campaign by bundling the maximum contributions of $2,300 from individuals. The Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, for example, gave Bill Clinton’s foundation $700,000. Bernard L. Schwartz, chairman of BLS Investments and the former chairman and CEO of Loral Space & Communications, is also a HillRaiser. There is similar Clinton Foundation/HillRaiser overlap with Ted Waitt, the billionaire who founded Gateway Computers; New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs CEO; and commercial real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein. (Walter’s son, Doug, is also a HillRaiser.)

Similarly, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation has donated to Bill Clinton’s foundation, while Susan Thompson Buffett’s widower, Warren Buffet, the billionaire investment guru, has helped raise money for Hillary Clinton.

Some observers doubt that Bill Clinton is peddling potential access to the White House to make money for his foundation or for himself. And attorneys familiar with conflict-of-interest issues say they suspect that most of the money flowing toward Bill Clinton, so far, probably has had little to do with his wife’s presidential prospects. “Bill Clinton obviously has his own persona and reputation,” explained Baran, the former general counsel for the RNC.

But it remains to be seen how the Clintons will manage the potential problem of perceived conflicts of interest, should Hillary Clinton become the next president. For example, Bill Clinton’s own personal finances could raise questions about influence from major corporations. Between 2001 and the end of 2006, an array of foreign companies have plunked down big bucks for a Bill Clinton speech, which typically generates $150,000 to $250,000 in fees. So have large U.S. companies and trade organizations that also spend millions to lobby Washington politicians. In 2006, General Motors, IBM, Cisco and the Biotechnology Industry Organization all hired Bill Clinton to speak.

One company that paid $200,000 for a Bill Clinton speech, the consumer information broker infoUSA, has also handed Bill Clinton $3 million in consulting contracts since he left the White House. Those details came out through a shareholder suit filed in 2006 alleging that the CEO of the company, Vinod Gupta, misspent millions in corporate money. The lawsuit alleged that Gupta spent money frivolously on the Clintons, even giving them the use of a private plane. Press reports have suggested that the relationship between the Clintons and Gupta — a major Democratic donor who reportedly gave Clinton’s foundation $1 million — has cooled, following reports that infoUSA sold consumer information later used to bilk cash from the elderly.

But if Bill Clinton is down on Gupta, it did not stop him from lavishing praise on infoUSA in his new book on philanthropy, “Giving.” In the book, Bill Clinton commends infoUSA for “making a concerted effort to hire people on welfare, as well as people who are disabled or who have to support themselves after getting out of unsafe domestic situations.” In the book the former president does not mention his financial compensation from the company.

After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton also agreed to a consulting arrangement with billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle, another major Democratic donor, though it is unclear how much Burkle has paid Clinton. In “Giving,” the former president calls his work with Burkle “the only private sector offer I accepted.”

Philanthropists who have donated to the former president’s foundation said they were impressed with Bill Clinton’s altruistic efforts, which have received widespread praise for being effective, pragmatic and ambitious. Clinton’s philanthropic strategy is based, in part, on using business acumen and personal charisma to facilitate the development of stable, profitable markets for socially beneficial products, whether HIV drugs for developing nations or energy-efficient light bulbs. In a recent profile of this strategy in the Atlantic, Clinton is quoted as saying that it is “wrong to ask anyone to lose money.” In his version of giving, everybody wins.

An example of a satisfied contributor to the Clinton Foundation is Craig Hall. A big Democratic supporter, Hall has donated to the Clinton Foundation through the Craig and Kathryn Hall Foundation. He also describes himself as “very active” in supporting Hillary Clinton for president. Along with other donors contacted by Salon, Hall expressed admiration for Bill Clinton’s approach to philanthropy. “I believe in doing things to help other people,” Hall said.

Other donors to Bill Clinton’s foundation point to Clinton’s legendary charisma and personal charm. “When you talk to him in a crowded room, you think you are the only person in the room,” said Lewis Cullman, the philanthropist who pioneered the leveraged buyout. “He can turn off his peripheral vision, so that if anything goes by him, his eyes don’t move. I can’t do that,” Cullman said.

Cullman’s foundation has given Clinton’s foundation more than $250,000 since 2004. He persuaded Clinton to show up at the New York headquarters of Chess in the Schools, a nonprofit organization that Cullman chairs, which aims to bring the game into New York City public school classrooms. Clinton also praises Cullman, and Chess in the Schools, in “Giving.” But Cullman maintains that he “never asked [Clinton] for any personal favors at all. I don’t believe in that.”

Other donors recounted an understated approach by Clinton to raising money. Alfred Engelberg, counsel to the generic drug industry when it started in the early 1980s, got a call from a Clinton associate back in 2003. “Somebody asked if I would meet with former President Clinton to hear a pitch for the foundation,” Engelberg remembered. But during the meeting, the two men just talked about AIDS drugs in Africa for an hour. “Typical of Bill Clinton, he never even made a pitch,” said Engelberg. “Finally, after an hour I had to leave, and the president had to leave, and I said, ‘It has been a very interesting conversation, but I don’t think this is why you invited me here,’” he recalled. “And he said, ‘I’m so into all this stuff, I forget. But I am behind on all my fundraising, and if you are inclined to help us out, do so.’” Engelberg said he is frequently solicited for charitable contributions. He called Clinton’s pitch “the lowest-key non-ask.” The Engelberg Foundation donated $200,000, according to tax records.

Hall praised Clinton’s decision to continue his foundation work even if his wife is elected. “I would think that we as a government ought to coordinate and do more and have public policy work with private philanthropy,” said Hall, who first met Clinton in 1978. But he predicted that Bill Clinton would have to make some adjustments in his fundraising activities or his disclosures if his wife were elected. “My overall view is that this is a positive thing,” Hall said. “On the other hand, I’m sure they will have a lot of thought about how they will handle all of this to add more transparency and more detail.”

Mark Benjamin is a national correspondent for Salon based in Washington, D.C. 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