2008 Elections

How the election ate daytime television

Why talk shows like "The View" are showcasing some of the most sophisticated (and mind-numbingly stupid) conversations about the presidential race.

  • more
    • All Share Services

How the election ate daytime television

Eight minutes before the first and only vice-presidential debate, MSNBC’s “Countdown” host, Keith Olbermann, and Newsweek’s Howard Fineman were talking about “The View.”

The opinionated, loud and very male Olbermann was making a point about how low Sarah Palin had sunk in America’s estimation by playing a video clip of the daytime talk show’s resident conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Admitting that Palin’s inability to name a single Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade was perhaps worrisome, Hasselbeck conceded, “That was a moment where she should have had some [examples] lined up.”

Olbermann and Fineman chuckled at the possibility that, as goes Elisabeth Hasselbeck, so goes the country. “This is not my usual turf,” said Fineman.

It sure isn’t. But this isn’t anybody’s usual campaign, and what the (still mostly male) political pundits are coming to grips with is that the election cycle is not just playing out on their news shows and their 24-hour networks but also in the traditionally feminine — and therefore traditionally marginalized — world of daytime television.

Credit Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton, or unprecedented excitement over the historic candidacy of Barack Obama and appreciation for his exceptionally appealing wife. Maybe it’s the panic about the financial crisis, outrage at the mishandling of the war, fury over gas prices, worries about the environment — all of which are so powerful that they’re causing the election to seep into unexpected cultural corners, like Us Weekly and porn. Whatever the reason, daytime talk shows have showcased some of the most sophisticated (as well as some of the most mind-numbingly stupid) conversations about what’s happening on the political stage this season.

For example, when you hear people on television these days discussing the Wall Street crisis and someone makes the incisive point that when the Feds give money to Wall Street executives, it’s called “a bailout,” but when they give it to regular citizens, “they call it socialism,” you might not be listening to Maddow and Buchanan or Hannity and Colmes but to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, who conducted just this conversation — along with “View” co-hosts Hasselbeck, Barbara Walters and Sherri Shepherd — in early October. And all before smoothly segueing into an interview “with the fabulous Alec Baldwin.”

And when somebody tosses a political zinger, it might just be Sherri Shepherd, who used to have the least to say politically on the show but is now letting loose like she did on Oct. 6, when Goldberg commented on Obama’s graying hair, and Shepherd quipped, “Every little bit of white helps.”

Strange as it may seem, daytime has historically provided some of the most progressive television in the nation. Long before prime-time TV made room for meaty female characters, soap operas were spinning out stories in which women were central characters. Soaps also provided many of television’s groundbreaking story lines — Erica Kane’s 1973 abortion on “All My Children,” the introduction of a gay character, Hank Elliott, on “As the World Turns” in 1988, “General Hospital’s” Stone battling AIDS in the 1990s — made more powerful by the narrative intimacy afforded by the daily serial format.

But it wasn’t just soaps that pushed the envelope. Phil Donahue’s daily talk show, which ran from 1970 to 1996, focused on topics from atheism to sexuality to Soviet-American relations during the Cold War. Married to “That Girl” feminist icon Marlo Thomas, Donahue focused on the women’s movement. Donahue once told the L.A. Times that he owes his success to the fact that he “discovered early on that the usual idea of women’s programming was a narrow, sexist view. We found that women were interested in a lot more than covered dishes and needlepoint.”

Post-Donahue, there was a devolution in the level of political discourse on daytime; in its place was a spate of shows devoted to personal drama. Hosts like Sally Jessy Raphael, Ricki Lake and, most famously, Jerry Springer populated the airwaves with battling couples, faked paternity tests, revelations of cheating partners, a lot of hair pulling and, on Springer’s show especially, some lusty throwing of chairs. But whatever else there is to say about this genre, it did what little else on television or the movies was doing: It gave a voice and a face and a stage to portions of the American population who otherwise had no outlet for expression — the poor and the working class, as well as gay and transgendered people, transsexuals and other sexual nonconformists.

And, of course, for decades daytime has been the home of culture-changing Oprah Winfrey, who made blackness, and black womanhood, not only visible in the lily-white mainstream media — not only acceptable, not only likable — but also deeply and powerfully relatable. Were it not for Oprah Winfrey, we might not have Barack Obama as our Democratic candidate for president, both because of her early endorsement of his candidacy and also because of her presence and power in American culture.

This makes it all the more fascinating that, as the daytime airwaves flash with political conversation, Winfrey is comparatively silent. In the past, she has invited candidates from both parties on her show, but because of her early and open support of Obama, she has decided not to host any of the presidential candidates. As she told reporters, “At the beginning of this presidential campaign, when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.” This has created an odd dynamic in which one of Obama’s most powerful supporters is unwilling to use her considerable forum to show her support, even at the height of election season.

 

But the Oprah vacuum has created more room for other daytime hosts to get in on the electoral act, not to mention more incentive for candidates to visit shows besides Winfrey’s if they want to reach daytime audiences. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have all been guests on Ellen DeGeneres’ talk show; McCain and Bill Clinton have taken their lumps on “The View,” while Michelle Obama made her first post-primary splash there in June, and in April, during Obama’s appearance, Barabara Walters told him he was “very sexy-looking.” Then again, McCain practically received a massage when he showed up with his wife, Cindy, to cook ribs with Rachael Ray, when the 30-minute chef and presidential candidate even made the dubious pronouncement that he buys his ribs at Costco — just like you!

There seems to be an added incentive for candidates to show up and shill on daytime this year, in part because Clinton’s candidacy and all it entailed made clear that the women’s vote, and women’s views, were in fact going to matter to the outcome of this election. It doesn’t hurt that, between TiVo and the Internet, the daytime audience (after years of contracting) has grown exponentially in recent years, if not for entire episodes of programming then for choice moments. News sites, fashion sites, feminist sites, humor sites — they can now all posts clips from talk shows so that those with day jobs can catch what they missed while they were gone from home. The shows need to up their game in order to increase Internet visibility and play to a broader audience.

But it’s not simply the audience demographics of daytime that have changed. It’s also the face of daytime hosts. Ellen DeGeneres, unceremoniously bounced from prime time after her emergence from the closet, found a home on daytime in 2003 and an audience that loved her, gay or straight. And at “The View,” the wild ride of Rosie O’Donnell’s year-long tenure helped to tune an audience ear to the sound of loud and left-leaning political commentary. The show, thanks to its founder, Barbara Walters, and original moderator, Meredith Vieira, always had a newsy bent. But during Rosie’s time there, “The View” became a forum for shouting matches, often about controversial topics and vociferously voiced partisan opinion. Rosie, of course, was replaced by Whoopi Goldberg — a less divisive but almost as bolshy presence.

It is still relatively safe for guests, and political candidates, to expect the friendly, kid-glove, recipe-heavy/policy-light treatment that McCain received when he appeared on Rachael Ray, when the host asked him about making American diets healthier before allowing him to crow about his proficiency on a barbecue (or the treatment Obama received from the moony ladies at “The View,” or on “Ellen,” when DeGeneres gave him a light dance-and-chat). But it has recently become more common to see politicians, especially John McCain, made uncomfortable by the directness of the conversation on daytime television, a directness that isn’t often found in the more traditional news media.

DeGeneres, who keeps most of her show politically benign (and for the first few years didn’t often mention her lesbianism), has of late made much more of her sexuality, broadcasting video this summer of her wedding to actress Portia de Rossi. Last May, DeGeneres subjected McCain to one of his most uncomfortable interviews, using her upcoming nuptials as a platform on which to grill the candidate about the issue of gay marriage. It should be noted that DeGeneres also questioned Hillary Clinton about her feelings about gay marriage, and that McCain’s willingness to appear on DeGeneres’ show at all was notable, given his attempts at the time to court the conservative base of his party.

“Let’s talk about the big elephant in the room,” DeGeneres said, explaining that she had already been planning to have a commitment ceremony but that, because of the California decision to legalize gay unions, “it just so happens that I legally now can get married, like everyone should.” Her audience clapped as she asked McCain for his thoughts on the topic.

“I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements and I think that is something we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance,” said McCain. “I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.”

Here DeGeneres persisted: “We are all the same people. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same … When someone says, ‘You’ll have a contract, and you’ll still have insurance … it feels like someone saying, ‘You can sit here, you just can’t sit there.’”

McCain was left to say only, “I’ve heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement and I, along with many many others, wish you every happiness.”

It was a glimpse at what the daytime format makes possible: a breezy, casual, personal exchange as vehicle for a larger social conversation. The moment packs a wallop in part because the heft of the encounter is a surprise, and in part because it is delivered by a host, like DeGeneres, whom viewers feel they know intimately and trust. Instead of watching a political pundit conduct an inside-baseball transaction with a candidate, an audience can feel as if a friend has just asked the questions.

Since her McCain interview, DeGeneres has stuck to her bipartisan good cheer, using what influential cultural power she wields to get people to register to vote. On Oct. 2, the last day before many voter registration deadlines, she welcomed Leonardo DiCaprio to preview a public service announcement they’d made together (along with Dustin Hoffman, Sarah Silverman, Ashton Kutcher, Forest Whittaker and others) encouraging people to register. And she’s been hawking “Laugh. Dance. Vote.” T-shirts and boxers on her show.

If there is any remaining doubt about which candidate might mirror DeGeneres’ political positions (on gay marriage and animal protection, another passion) and which candidate’s prospects might benefit from increased voter turnout, DeGeneres has also tipped her hand (subtly) by allowing some of her more partisan guests to get their digs in. “It’s like they scoured America for a woman,” said reality star Sharon Osbourne on a September episode, in reference to Sarah Palin, “and the last stop before you fell off America was Alaska, and there she was, iced, waiting … It’s like she was a last resort … They want women to vote for her, but women aren’t that stupid.”

This last line provoked wild cheering as DeGeneres nodded, “Uh-huh, uh-huh.”

And however easy Rachael Ray was on McCain, it’s only fair to point out that she also fluffed Michelle and Barack Obama, telling them in early August, “I just wanted to say it is such an exciting, wonderful time to be an American, and I think your campaign really has created this great wave, this great fervor.” In the ensuing interview with Michelle, Ray asked innocuous questions about whether the couple gets date nights (they do) and what “their song” is (Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” and Stevie Wonder’s “You and I”).

But none of this holds a candle to what has been going on at “The View,” where ringleader and show creator Barbara Walters has, as reported by Jacques Steinberg in the New York Times, been making “a conscious effort to insert their daytime talk show forcefully into the nation’s political conversation this fall.”

It’s worked.

Consider John McCain’s much-discussed Sept. 12 appearance on the program, which began as he settled comfortably and confidently into the couch. By the time the interview ended, he had conceded that he did not want to reenslave black people and weathered sharp questions about how many earmarks Sarah Palin had put in for as Alaska governor. As his wife, Cindy, later complained to a rally, the daytime hostesses with the mostest had “picked our bones clean.” Indeed, it was the finest and most direct questioning John McCain has received during his campaign, or on the issues, from anyone in the mainstream media.

The conversation with McCain was powerful enough to prompt former President Bill Clinton to get himself booked on the show. And while the women treated him with a bit more reverence, they did stick him with some honkingly direct questions — about whether he or his wife had wanted Hillary to be Obama’s running mate, about what Clinton thought of Palin — that were controversial enough for Clinton to make news by answering them (with his current tone-deaf ambivalence about the election).

But most mornings on “The View,” neither presidential candidates, nor their spouses, are on the couch. Most days, the first 10 minutes are devoted to frequently high-pitched arguments about the day’s headlines, the election and the financial crisis in which everyone is involved — including Sherri Shepherd, who once admitted that she had never voted before. These are conversations that often prove the hosts to be well-informed and opinionated. These ladies are a regular “McNeil-Lehrer News Hour” for the late-morning set, with Hasselbeck as the benighted Republican bugaboo.

On an early October episode, Goldberg kicked things off by suggesting that, “If we were gonna be surging anywhere, we should have surged our behinds into Afghanistan!” and chiding McCain for relying too heavily on the success of the surge as a talking point.

Soon Hasselbeck was yelling words like “Rezko! Ayers!”

“No, excuse me,” interjected Shepherd, who seems increasingly radicalized, especially in response to Hasselbeck’s conservatism. “McCain was involved in the Keating Five.”

Behar shouted, “You go, Sherri!”

When Behar, whose investment in this election has landed her repeatedly on “Larry King Live” and who was (somewhat depressingly) dubbed by the New York Times’ Frank Rich as “the new Edward R. Murrow” after the McCain interview, brought up the clip of CNN’s Campbell Brown lighting into the “sexist” McCain campaign for keeping the media away from Sarah Palin, Walters said, “I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman. I think it’s that they fear she may make a mistake because she’s uninformed.”

Behar countered, “If she were an uninformed male, would they allow her to speak to the press?”

Walters replied, “If it were an uninformed man they might have the same barrier.” And then, Rachel Maddow-style, to some unseen McCain campaign entity: “We would like to say, once more, that we would like to have Mrs. Palin on the program.”

Best of luck with that request, ladies!

After last week’s vice-presidential debate, Hasselbeck had (unsurprisingly) recovered from her moment of doubt about Palin’s capabilities. She asserted that the Alaskan governor had done a good job. Shepherd, meanwhile, was dismayed by Palin’s refusal to answer moderator Gwen Ifill’s questions, and Walters found the whole thing utterly unrevelatory, although she was bothered by the fact that Palin brought young Trig onstage so late at night.

When Hasselbeck groused about how, like any mom, Palin probably just wanted her kids around her, Shepherd cut her off: “Barbara didn’t say she was a bad mom!” she corrected. It wasn’t long before Hasselbeck returned to her favorite complaint about Obama: his associations with Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers.

“Bill Ayers surrendered,” Goldberg said, explaining gently, for the umpteenth time, to Hasselbeck that “he, like a lot of us in a certain generation, were pissed at the United States of America. Some were more radical than others … he turned himself in. I assume he rehabilitated himself. I don’t recall anyone in 2001 saying, ‘Let’s go get Bill Ayers because he’s a terrorist.’”

Soon came conversation about how people’s pasts are people’s pasts, and that McCain had his own Keating past. “John McCain was cleared of any charges!” said Hasselbeck.

“It was poor judgment,” said Walters.

But Hasselbeck was undeterred. “This is what bothers me truly about Barack Obama,” she said. “He wants to hide all of his radical connections.”

“It’s crap,” said Goldberg.

“It’s not crap,” shot back Hasselbeck.

“It’s crap,” repeated Goldberg, officially, sending the program to commercial while the crowd cheered wildly.

Rebecca Traister

Rebecca Traister writes for Salon. She is the author of "Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women" (Free Press). Follow @rtraister on Twitter.

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