Merged Interesting Newsweek article on miscellaneous campaign dirt

[davefoc]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581

On Palin's clothes
1. Much more was spent than was released.
2. She got staffers to buy clothes on their credit cards
3. A lot of the money came from a private donor who was shocked when he got the bill.
4. 20-40K was spent on Todd's clothes
5. McCain wasn't told because they thought he'd be pissed.
6.

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Even if this stuff isn't true it's interesting that the staff is pissed off enough that they'd make this stuff up about Palin.

McCain's concession speech
Palin wanted to be there but campaign strategist vetoed it. [davefoc thought: Strange, seems like totally a McCain decision, seems like the campaign's strategist job is over when the election has been lost]

McCain campaign's view of Hillary as VP
Much stronger candidate than Biden. They were relieved by Biden pick.

McCain and Palin
1.They hardly spoke
2. Palin went off on her own on the Ayers attacks

McCain's decisions about campaign issues
1. vetoed reverend Wright stuff
2. vetoed commercial showing Obama dancing with Ellen Degeneris


And many more interesting little tidbits. I especially liked this one from a supposed Obama recording:

So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

 

[Sefarst]

Don't forget that staffers have a strong incentive to pass the blame when their candidate loses.

 

[davefoc]

Don't forget that staffers have a strong incentive to pass the blame when their candidate loses.

And don't forget that people will cover up just about anything if their partisan agenda requires it. The Republicans sat on their hands while Bush used the Iraq war as an opportunity to enrich corporate cronies, and while Bush attempted to undermine the rule of law with the illegal politicization of the US Attorneys and while Bush spent the country into oblivion.

The reality seems to be people just don't tell the truth about what's going on until they're in a position to not be hurt by the truth.

Palin, seems to be a somewhat more corrupt than the average politician.

Her famous efforts to get the Alaskans a great deal on the building of the new pipeline turned out to be an attempt by her to game the bidding process to favor a single company, she used the power of her office to attempt to get around worker privacy laws to get a police officer fired, and she lied consistently about her role with the bridge to nowhere. This is all stuff that at the beginning of one's political career should be seen as major red flags about what is to follow. Despite all this and her now famous complete lack of relevant foreign policy experience or knowledge she was still gamely defended by a band of partisan Republicans.

In the county where I live the local politicians fought valiantly to get a local sheriff elected that was guilty of miscellaneous sexist activities and that was close to dying (he died almost immediately after the election). Not once was there any sign that those politicians considered the public good. Supporting that Sheriff was in their political interest and so they supported him.

So we're left with a couple of possibilities on Palin. She was unqualified by lack of experience, lack of relevant knowledge and by lack of ethics to be the president of the US and that fact was hidden by partisan hacks or that none of that was true and a bunch of disgruntled campaign operatives did her in. Take your pick.

 

[Policenaut]

So can any of these claims be verified?

 

[ZouPrime]

The OP links to the "highlights" section of an ongoing set of articles. Just bellow the heading "Secrets of the 2008 Campaign", see the tabs to "chapter 1", "chapter 2" and "chapter 3"? Make sure to take a look at this, if you have followed the campaign from the start of the primaries you will love it. Lots of very interesting information. A must read.

 

[Ausmerican]

McCain's concession speech
Palin wanted to be there but campaign strategist vetoed it. [davefoc thought: Strange, seems like totally a McCain decision, seems like the campaign's strategist job is over when the election has been lost]

Ummm gotta ask then. That lady standing next to McCain in the updo and glasses? Was that Tiny Fey standing in? Because it sure looked like Palin was there.

ETA: Nevermind Dave. I see what happened, you slightly misquoted the article. It says Palin wanted to SPEAK at the concession speech and that idea was vetoed, not that she wanted to be there.

 

[shecky]

Fox News has some additional dirt on her via youtube.

 

[davefoc]

So can any of these claims be verified?

Not right now for sure. And it will be a while before the fog of miscellaneous agendas is cleared out of the way before any objective viewer can make more than a guess. For me, I remain confused, even with as cynical about the effect of partisanship on political behavior that I have become it is still amazing that this woman was allowed to get this close to presidency given how bad she is being portrayed. What her various critics that are coming forth right now might not realize is that the sliming of Palin slimes them either way. If the sliming is based on truth they sat back and allowed this disastrous choice to almost become VPOTUS or they're lying to make her look worse to excuse their failures.

...
ETA: Nevermind Dave. I see what happened, you slightly misquoted the article. It says Palin wanted to SPEAK at the concession speech and that idea was vetoed, not that she wanted to be there.

Actually I wrote my post mostly without referring back to the original article and I just made a mistake. Thank you for the correction. And of course sarcasm is always appreciated when somebody screws up.

Fox News has some additional dirt on her via youtube.

Nice little piece. I didn't quite believe that she didn't know that Africa was a continent. Is that possible? Maybe that was some kind of hyperbole? One thing for sure, in the entire campaign I never saw her intellectualizing about anything. She could sure rev up the guys in the crowd though. I don't think a lot of them were there to get a detailed understanding of her views on geopolitical strategies or economic theories. And no matter what you might think she was on the team that got 44% of the vote a number that wasn't that far from winning. Maybe the women voters should be credited with saving the country on this one. I think it was possible that a lot of guys were relying on something besides their brain when they voted for the McCain/Palin team.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Secrets of the 2008 Campaign

Here's an interesting article in Newsweek (Not so much the hacker stuff, but the other "secrets" from the Presidential campaign). Some highlights:

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain's core group of advisers—Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons—met to decide whether to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had "a pulse."

Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It sounds like they're trying to make it sound like McCain wasn't responsible for the worst excesses of his campaign. I don't buy it.

I didn't see a gun pointed to his head when he claimed Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in the U.S., for example.

So either he didn't put together a campaign team that was capable of doing its homework, or many of these impulsive-looking decisions really were directly his own. Either way, it was his name on top of the ticket.

 

[MattusMaximus]

One big factor: teh Internet.

ETA: When McCain and/or Palin had their horrible gaffes, especially Palin with her atrocious interviews, it would be replayed millions upon millions of times on Youtube and other Internet sites. There's no way in hell a political campaign can spin that kind of damage.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It sounds like they're trying to make it sound like McCain wasn't responsible for the worst excesses of his campaign. I don't buy it.

I didn't see a gun pointed to his head when he claimed Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in the U.S., for example.

So either he didn't put together a campaign team that was capable of doing its homework, or many of these impulsive-looking decisions really were directly his own. Either way, it was his name on top of the ticket.

I could see how you'd get that from some of these snippets. These are just teasers from a larger project. There's actually quite a bit more at the Newsweek site than the Highlights article I linked to. If you look along the top there are multiple "Chapters", each with multiple pages chronicallying the campains of both candidates. From the beginning of Chapter 1:

This is part one of a seven-part in-depth look behind the scenes of the campaign, consisting of exclusive behind-the-scenes reporting from the McCain and Obama camps assembled by a special team of reporters who were granted year-long access on the condition that none of their findings appear until after Election Day.

I've only read parts of it so far (and not all chapters are yet available online), but they do try to point out when certain actions were taken with his knowlege/support vs. things that happened behind his back, so to speak. It's an interesting read so far, and I plan to pick up the print copy.

 

[geni]

One big factor: teh Internet.

ETA: When McCain and/or Palin had their horrible gaffes, especially Palin with her atrocious interviews, it would be replayed millions upon millions of times on Youtube and other Internet sites. There's no way in hell a political campaign can spin that kind of damage.

Obama pretty much managed it with the Jeremiah Wright mess.

 

[gtc]

Female politicians and politicians' wives seem to be between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand mainstream newspapers are publishing criticism of the dress Michelle Obama wore during Barrack's victory speech. Comments like:

I voted for Obama, but I didn't vote for that dress," homemaker and mother of three Jessica Bettencourt from Wisconsin told The New York Times.
"I don't know what was worse," Chicago lawyer Karla Wright told the paper, "that stupid criss-cross band around the middle or that black sort of border coming up from the hem."

But when women like Palin spend enough money to avoid being criticised for the clothes they are wearing they get criticised for spending too much money.

Is there some happy medium that both women missed or are women damned if they do or damned if they don't?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I started a thread on this earlier. Perhaps the mods can merge them?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another observation: McCain is the guy who's always claimed to be able to reach out and work with politicians across the aisle, yet he couldn't seem to work very well with his own running mate.

 

[dudalb]

Female politicians and politicians' wives seem to be between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand mainstream newspapers are publishing criticism of the dress Michelle Obama wore during Barrack's victory speech. Comments like:

I voted for Obama, but I didn't vote for that dress," homemaker and mother of three Jessica Bettencourt from Wisconsin told The New York Times.
"I don't know what was worse," Chicago lawyer Karla Wright told the paper, "that stupid criss-cross band around the middle or that black sort of border coming up from the hem."

The Mr. Blackwell Memorial post.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Don't forget that staffers have a strong incentive to pass the blame when their candidate loses.

Most of the article was from information obtained before the election outcome was known:

This is part one of a seven-part in-depth look behind the scenes of the campaign, consisting of exclusive behind-the-scenes reporting from the McCain and Obama camps assembled by a special team of reporters who were granted year-long access on the condition that none of their findings appear until after Election Day.

 

[gtc]

Just to be clear this bit of my post above was my own words:

Female politicians and politicians' wives seem to be between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand mainstream newspapers are publishing criticism of the dress Michelle Obama wore during Barrack's victory speech. Comments like:

 

[ZirconBlue]

I thought I'd give this a bump, now that all 7 chapters are available online. I picked up a print copy at the hotel I was staying at yesterday, too.

While I'm here. . . .

Just to be clear this bit of my post above was my own words:

Female politicians and politicians' wives seem to be between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand mainstream newspapers are publishing criticism of the dress Michelle Obama wore during Barrack's victory speech. Comments like:

I think you have a point, but I think there's a happy medium somewhere between "nice clothes" and "$150,000+" clothes. Plus, according to the Newsweek article, she allegedly spent quite a bit of money on clothes for her husband, too.