2008 Elections

Are you there, God? It’s me, Rudy

An unholy trinity of issues -- abortion, immigration and his messy personal life -- could hurt Giuliani's chances with his key constituency, Catholic voters.

Late last spring, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence opened his mail to find an invitation to a local fundraising event for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Tobin made national headlines when he responded to the invitation by penning a column for the Rhode Island Catholic about Rudy Giuliani’s abortion views, chastising the former New York mayor for saying he believes abortion is morally wrong yet supports reproductive choice for women as a matter of public policy.

“Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing,” wrote Tobin. “[His] preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard.”

Catholics, who cast almost a quarter of all votes nationally, and higher shares in swing states like Ohio, are one of the most important voting blocs in the American electorate. In fact, in every presidential election since 1972 the winner of the Catholic vote has won the overall national popular vote, something no other religious group — Jews, evangelicals, Protestants — can boast. If Republicans nominate him, barring a surprising late surge from Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, Giuliani would be the only Catholic in the general election. And part of Giuliani’s supposed “electability,” a selling point to the party faithful, is that he would draw support from “Reagan Democrats” in crucial, and heavily Catholic, Democratic and swing states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Polls of likely Republican primary voters have long shown that Giuliani is a favorite among Catholic Republicans. But if Giuliani’s electability in the general election hinges in any way on his co-religionists, he may be in trouble. Problems with Catholics like Bishop Tobin were not hard to predict. It was inevitable that during Republican primary season, some conservative and observant Catholics would raise questions about Giuliani’s checkered marital history and his stands on abortion and gay rights. But if he is the nominee next fall, he will also have to contend with three other Catholic constituencies in the general election — less-observant Catholics, politically moderate Catholics and Latino Catholics — all of whom may find fault with him for very different reasons.

The short history of Catholic presidential nominees begins in 1928. At that year’s Democratic National Convention in Houston, New York Gov. Al Smith overcame resistance by Catholic-wary delegates from Texas and the South to win the nomination on the first ballot. If not for his religion, Smith’s progressive platform might have been better received during the general election. Instead, by a 58 percent to 41 percent margin Republican Herbert Hoover crushed Smith, who became the first Democratic nominee since Reconstruction to lose more than one Southern state.

In the wake of the Smith debacle, neither party would run a Catholic for the presidency for another 32 years. John F. Kennedy’s religion continued to be a concern for Democrats even after he’d secured the party’s nomination in 1960. Today, JFK’s famed “the Church does not speak for me” speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of that year is viewed as a glass ceiling moment for Catholic politicians, but at the time some still believed the candidate’s faith made him unelectable. The bootlegger’s son proved his doubters wrong, if barely so. He won nationally by fewer than one vote per precinct — squeaking to victory because of wide margins in Catholic neighborhoods in the closely contested states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey.

Forty-four years after Kennedy, the Democrats again nominated a Catholic senator from Massachusetts with the initials JFK. Despite facing an incumbent, John Kerry performed rather well nationally in 2004 against President George W. Bush. Following the more recent historical pattern, in losing the general election by less than 3 percentage points, he also lost the overall Catholic vote by 5 percentage points.

If nominated to run in the general election next fall, Rudy Giuliani would be the first Republican Catholic presidential candidate in history. But to predict how he might perform, it’s actually instructive to look at how Democrat John Kerry fared in 2004.

Catholicism in and of itself is probably no longer much of a factor, positive or negative, for voters. Despite those early polls showing that Catholic Republicans prefer Giuliani to his GOP rivals, Clemson University political scientist Laura Olson doesn’t think the simple fact of Giuliani’s religion will prove a boon at the voting booth come next November. “Catholic voters aren’t going to turn out en masse for Giuliani any more than they did for Kerry, which they didn’t,” predicts Olson, author of “Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices.” At the same time, says Olson, Rudy’s faith won’t hinder him. “Being Catholic isn’t much of a stigma anymore in the United States — except at the margins, like some corners of the rural South — in large part because Catholics have assimilated so thoroughly.”

What matters today, instead of denomination, is devotion, and that’s where Giuliani’s fortunes may parallel Kerry’s. To understand the intersection of religion and politics in America, as Akron University’s John Green explains in his new book, “The Faith Factor: How Religion Influences American Elections,” it is now more important to focus on “behaving” and “believing” than “belonging.” Put simply, it’s more instructive to know how often people attend church than what type of church they attend.

Frequency of church attendance, regardless of denomination, corresponds with conservatism on social issues like abortion. Sixty-three percent of Catholics who go to Mass weekly are antiabortion. In 2004, John Kerry’s pro-choice stance was a clear liability among devout Catholics. White Catholics who attended church weekly were 9 percentage points more likely than less frequent attenders to vote for George Bush.

Rudy Giuliani, like John Kerry, is pro-choice. “As a pro-choice former mayor of New York City, it’s hard to see how his Catholicism helps him,” asserts Sean Casey, associate professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary. “Among moderate and conservative Catholics, because of his position on abortion, Giuliani does nothing for them. In fact, he looks like a turncoat of a worse variety than Kerry because he’s a Republican.”

As proved by Bishop Tobin’s column, and the existence of anti-Giuliani conservative groups like this one, a few dissenting voices will be enough to generate controversy. “It’s becoming ever more clear that Rudy Giuliani suffers from John Kerry syndrome,” Joseph Cella, president of Fidelis, a Catholic advocacy group, told the New York Times earlier this year. “[H]e shares the identical position on abortion as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.” Fidelis ran ads slamming Giuliani’s pro-choice stance in Iowa prior to August’s straw poll.

Giuliani is also, after one annulment and one divorce, on his third marriage. His marital history exacerbates his problems with devout Catholics. “Rudy’s a lousy Catholic,” said Casey. “He hasn’t taken communion in years because of his marital problems. I think the Catholic bishops are gunning for him. If he’s dumb enough to show up asking for communion, they’re going to whack him.” Several Catholic bishops have already signaled that they would deny Giuliani this sacrament. Giuliani may come to regret saying, as he did in August, “The degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests.”

But if the Tobin episode hinted that a more general rebuke might be forthcoming from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that possibility became a bit more remote after the 300-plus bishops assembled in Baltimore in November. They ratified a new political document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which provides a bit of wiggle room on abortion for Catholics. “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” The Rev. Thomas J. Reese of Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center asked rhetorically in the New York Times. “What [the Bishops] are saying is, ‘Yes.’”

Moreover, Giuliani’s anti-terrorism profile could be an asset among conservative Catholics, especially white Catholics. “In 2004, when the rest of the electorate told exit pollsters that ‘moral values’ was their top issue, white Catholics cited terrorism,” observes Scott Winship, a social policy analyst and frequent contributor to “the Democratic Strategist” Web site.

Whites, however, now account for fewer Catholic voters than they once did. In November 2008, one out of four Catholic voters will be Latino. Kerry easily won Latino Catholics in the last election cycle. They chose him by 5-to-3 over Bush, with little difference in the behavior of “weekly attenders” and the “less devout.” Should he reach the general election, Giuliani could be helped or hindered by Latino Catholic voters, depending on whether he runs on his record or his primary-season rhetoric. As mayor of New York, Giuliani presided over a so-called sanctuary city. As a contender for the Republican nomination, he has tried to out-flip-flop Mitt Romney by talking tougher-than-thou on illegal immigration. If he became the GOP candidate, would he tack back to the center to make amends with Latinos? Would the GOP base let him?

Finally, one of the reasons that Kerry remained competitive with Bush is that he ran even among another one of Catholicism’s fastest-growing cohorts: the less devout. And less observant, younger and more politically moderate Catholics may have no problem with Rudy’s views on social issues, but they may not like the fact that he has Norman Podhoretz on his foreign policy team. “I think Rudy might have a difficult time appealing to many white Catholics not only because of his positions on abortion and gay rights, but also because he is so hawkish on foreign policy,” predicts Olson. “The abortion and gay rights positions would hurt him with one distinct group of white Catholics — those who are most observant and most conservative — but the foreign policy positions might hurt him with more moderate-to-progressive white Catholics.”

Come November 2008, will any of these factors change the electoral map? Looked at on a state-by-state basis, the most favorable scenario for Giuliani is in his home region. Among white Catholics, there is a slight Republican skew to weekly attenders, men and those with higher incomes. This could conceivably help Giuliani in the Northeast, which is heavy on both high-income households and Catholics and where Bush’s reliance on the security issue, Giuliani’s strong suit, had some traction in the last presidential contest. According to 2004 exit polls, Catholics cast at least 31 percent of the vote in nine Northeastern states: New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Realistically, in a close election, only New Hampshire and Pennsylvania would truly be in play next fall. But both would represent GOP pickups, and Pennsylvania alone would be a crucial loss of electoral votes for Democrats.

Giuliani’s success with Catholic voters in the Southwestern swing states, meanwhile, would depend on which Giuliani shows up for the general election, the sanctuary-city mayor or the anti-illegal immigration GOP primary contender. Among the dozen states decided by 5 percent or less in 2004, the most notable in terms of Catholic populations are Ohio, Florida and three Southwestern states: Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Though Latino Catholics cast fewer than 5 percent of all votes nationally in the last presidential election, Latinos account for significant chunks of the Catholic population in all of these swing states except Ohio.

But Bush won all five of these states in 2004 anyway. The potential value of Giuliani’s Catholicism among Latinos is therefore reduced to helping Republicans protect what they already have. It might be safer to assume the momentum will go in the other direction. Hispanic voters are swinging back toward the Democrats and, as Olson notes, any Democratic nominee is certain to have an immigration position more attractive to Latinos than that of Giuliani, no matter how much he tamps down his present rhetoric.

In short, the Republicans might be able to open up the electoral map in 2008 with the right Catholic candidate. But that person would have to be pro-life, immigration-friendly, and still on his or her starter marriage. Unfortunately for the GOP, no such candidate is available, because Rudy Giuliani fails on all three counts. “Bush won Catholics in 2004, but they broke Democratic in the 2006 midterm elections,” says Casey. “But I’m not sure that a pro-choice NYC mayor is the guy to swing them back to the Republicans. The irony of the situation is that the Republicans may finally nominate a Catholic, but the wrong Catholic.”

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)

Nicolle 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

Julianne 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

Condoleezza 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

Members 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

Sarah 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