Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In the aftermath of the epic failure of the McCain campaign, you can expect the same kind of ugly leaks coming out that you saw from the Hillary Clinton campaign a few months ago. The McCain people are going to blame it all on Palin, the Palin people are going to blame it on the McCain people and it's going to get very, very nasty. Expect lots of quotes from unnamed sources in both camps. Let's start with this one:
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. 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.
A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin."
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.
Want more? Here's Fox News' Carl Cameron revealing things that were told to him by McCain staffers about Palin's ignorance:
Politics
Comments
Here's a video from Cameron on O'Leilly that expands the list of idiocies from the video above: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3178951&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
I also love O'Leilly excusing her ignorance and advocating that a campaign can train someone up from their relative ignorance. that such an exercise is even appropriate for a candidate running for national office. My rebuttal to O'Leilly is that a person of such rank voluntary ignorance will never possess the proper credentials to effectively execute the duties of the office. Unless of course one is promoting an idiocracy, which O'Leilly often appears to espouse.
Can you imagine sitting in your high school government class, pointing to the least interested apathetic student, and arguing that is the best equipped person to lead the nation sometime in the future if they maintain their self-inflicted ignorance like Palin has done her entire life?
The O'Leilly interview, which I saw prior to the Shep Smith interview, begs the question: Why did Fox News not report this earlier in the campaign? The Shep Smith interview has Cameron answering that question: that Cameron was told these claims where he had to agree they were off the record until after the campaign was over. To me that appears to at least insinuate that these campaign staffers were already pessimistic about their chances of winning soon after Palin came on board or else why would they give such a short deadline?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 9:52 AM
I confess I'm really enjoying the budding finger point-a-thon. I wish I were a bigger person than that, but oh well.
Posted by: WScott | November 6, 2008 9:54 AM
Why did Fox News not report this earlier in the campaign?
Obviously because they are fair and balanced and they couldn't find something as damaging to the Obama campaign to run parallel to it, so they couldn't report it at all.
Posted by: Odie | November 6, 2008 10:08 AM
I really like the inside jibes. I told my wife during McCain's speech that he didn't seem to warm to Palin perhaps the why is beginning to emerge.
Posted by: GH | November 6, 2008 10:13 AM
Can't wait until all the Team McCain insiders come out of the woodwork to deliver "how NOT to run a Presidential campaign 101". Should be interesting to find out exactly how it got so dysfunctional, so fast -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2008 10:22 AM
"Knowledgeability"?
Posted by: Ganf | November 6, 2008 10:34 AM
Hm. Anyone notice the contradiction here?
Posted by: gwangung | November 6, 2008 10:37 AM
"Why did Fox News not report this earlier in the campaign? "
I would think that both campaigns have many many 'off the record' moments. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc all have stuff they agreed not to report. Its the cost of gaining access.
(but the Palin's where so full of fail its of no surprise that many are lashing out in frustration now)
Posted by: yoshi | November 6, 2008 10:42 AM
Wow oh wow. O'Rielly was visible squirming there. I loved his dismissing her (alleged) utter ignorance of even basic facts that my 5 year old kid knows (Africa is a continent! South Africa is a country, not a section of the country of Africa!), saying, oh, well anyone can learn (even a woman, he has to interject -- I guess that wouldn't be clear for his audience?), saying, oh, she can be told about how the government works and the basics of geography and, well, reality, so her complete ignorance shouldn't count against her in any way.
Posted by: kevin | November 6, 2008 10:43 AM
Did someone say "wardrobe malfunction?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2008 10:53 AM
a Republican party lawyer is reportedly heading to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in Palin's possession.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 6, 2008 10:56 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 6, 2008 11:22 AM
I know she's pretty ignorant, but I'm having trouble swallowing the "Africa is a country" story. Surely, that's too much, even for her?
Posted by: Bartholomew | November 6, 2008 11:22 AM
Herod the Freemason:
I hope that lieyer is packin' and wearin him some kevlar. I wonder if the Cariboob will get more involved with the GOP or the AIP.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2008 11:25 AM
@Ganf: That caused me some elevated eyebrowification too.
Posted by: Allen | November 6, 2008 11:44 AM
I'm skeptical. She seems ignorant but she doesn't seem like a diva or someone addicted to personal luxury. This seems like a case where, because she partially conforms to a stereotype, people begin to believe that she will conform to other parts of it as well.
Though the fact that her 7-yr old daughter was photographed with a $790 Louis Vutton handbag makes me wonder if I am wrong about that.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 6, 2008 11:55 AM
Sullivan takes Carl Cameron to task very well here for failing to report Palin's ignorance prior to the election: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-civic-respo.html
His primary argument is that while Cameron had to respect the confidentiality requested of his anonymous leakers inside the McCain campaign, he could have easily built a story substantiating their claims by using other on the record sources.
Another great point in that blog post: "They [reporters] kept taking Palin seriously as a veep candidate when she didn't come close to even minimal standards for passing a citizenship test."
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 11:59 AM
One story is that Palin really is that stupid. The alternative story is that her party really is that stupid. Either way, it doesn't look good for the Republicans.
Nonetheless, a Republican party lawyer is reportedly heading to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in Palin's possession.
Gods, that sounds pervy!
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2008 12:18 PM
The leaks now are probably more than mere revenge (though that is probably a motivation as well). They are attempting to make sure that Palin won't be able to get the nomination in 2012 and do any more damage to the G.O.P.
These leaks are saying something even more important that Palin lacks the geographical knowledge that second graders are supposed fully grasp... If these leaks are accurate than Palin defrauded McCain campaign and the G.O.P.
While some clothing expenses are legit, I can't imagine that the G.O.P. would approve of her seven year old having a $790 bag at their expense especially given the G.O.P.'s financial condition. And if Palin had her staff use their personal credit cards, it suggests to me that Palin knew she was overstepping what she was authorized to spend. Of course she knew that they would not be able to complain. After all suing their own VP candidate is not exactly a viable option. Nor was firing her ass much of an option.
I can see the G.O.P. buying her some thousand dollar suits and a hair-stylist. But no way does that come anywhere near $150K.
Posted by: a lurker | November 6, 2008 12:26 PM
Nope. Ever watch Jay Leno asking such questions of American college graduates on his show for his "Jay Walking" bits? Geography is not one of the strongest subjects for American citizens.
When I read those latest reports on Palin, I breathed a second, much larger sigh of relief at the election results. I truly believe we dodged a bullet when McCain/Palin went down to defeat. It's not that Palin couldn't have learned some third grade geography on the job, it's that she didn't even know what she didn't know -- i.e. her profound ignorance -- that's scary.
Posted by: tacitus | November 6, 2008 12:29 PM
Re: "knowledgeability"
I noticed that quip in the Shep Smith interview as well. Cameron also used it in the O'Leilly interview.
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary does list such a word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledgeability
Never heard it before Cameron's use. I don't think Webster's in the tank for the far right so I doubt they recently added it. :)
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 12:46 PM
...it's that she didn't even know what she didn't know -- i.e. her profound ignorance -- that's scary.
What's even scarier is that she didn't WANT to learn, even when she knew damn well the knowledge was necessary and expected.
PS: spending $150K on clothes is stoopid. Spending $150K on clothes and still not looking as classy as Michelle Obama is even stoopider.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2008 12:49 PM
Um....did you notice who did the remodel of their house? And for how much?
Posted by: gwangung | November 6, 2008 12:50 PM
Good points by tacticus and Raging Bee on Palin not knowing what she didn't know and not wanting to know once her ignorance was identified. While there are several examples, the most glaring two that I noticed were:
1) Mischaracterizing Obama's position on negotiating with enemies in the debate; where she clearly did not understand what "preconditions" means in foreign policy parlance. Weeks later in the Brian Williams interview, after constantly criticizing Obama's position in her stump speeches on his not neccessarily requiring preconditions, she proved she still didn't understand the use of the term given that she equated it to a non-willingness to prepare for top level negotiations and also related it to a non-willingness for Obama to mandate lower level negotiations first. All the while she portrayed Obama as the ignorant, naive one.
2) Her perfect ignorance on the formal responsibilities of the office of the VP and where the office of the VP derived its powers from both the Constitution and the President: In the Cameron interview, after getting ridiculed on her ignorance on this topic for weeks, she claimed she had constitutional powers to "oversee the Senate".
To Raging Bee's point - she had no desire to learn even after having been made a fool. How dangerous is that?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 1:50 PM
I have a hard time believing the africa is not a country bit... for fuck's sake how does one get to the age she's at without seeing a map of the world, just by dumb luck? I could've sworn I've seen them in 2nd grade.
Although maybe not, since the response from billy was "you can tutor her". No shit, you can tutor a 7 year old too, let's get one in the presidency and get going. Isn't this the level of breath-taking idiocy where you think that maybe, just maybe, she shouldn't be running the USA?
No wonder all the semi-intelligent republicans jumped ship this election.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 6, 2008 1:57 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 6, 2008 2:26 PM
Which would you rather have?
A physician who has spent years in college, and years gaining experience on the job?
Or a physician who "crams for the test" just before your surgery?
It doesn't matter to me that Palin accepted or refused advice to "cram for the test". What matters is that her need to cram indicates that she is unqualified.
And even if she spends the next 4 years cramming, I doubt she'll be qualified to be the President.
Posted by: Calladus | November 6, 2008 2:47 PM
>
Umm...that didn't stop George W. Bush, did it?
Posted by: gary l. day | November 6, 2008 4:45 PM
Listening to the link to the Oh, Really? interview, I was shocked - even for something coming from him - when he said in response to Palin's lack of civics understanding or foreign experience:
You, what? I agree with Calladus: "It doesn't matter to me that Palin accepted or refused advice to "cram for the test". What matters is that her need to cram indicates that she is unqualified." Foreign policy experience is not just going out there and "talking" to people. It's more than learning a few facts from a book about exceptionalism or where countries are. It's more than knowing who the leader of Canada is (and that Quebec doesn't have a PM). It requires knowledge - something that is becoming more and more finger-pointingly obvious that she didn't have.
Later in that interview, we get to see a little bit about how nice and even-keeled she apparently was:
Yeah, I would really have liked her and even-keeled McCain running the show... NOT!
Posted by: Umlud | November 6, 2008 5:07 PM
HWJR?
How would Jesus Rage?
Posted by: SharonB | November 6, 2008 5:20 PM
SharonB
Appropriately enough, against the money lenders.
Posted by: heddle | November 6, 2008 5:24 PM
And not against people who asked him to prove he knew what he was talking about.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2008 5:31 PM
Re Heddle
Joshua of Nazareth did more then just mouth off at the money lenders. He used physical violence to evict them from the temple.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2008 5:49 PM
While I gave up studying Christian theology a few years ago, if memory serves me, it was not "lenders" that angered Jesus, but according to the author(s) of the Gospel of John, it was the existence of a market doing commerce in the temple that angered him. That included money changers, but also those selling doves and cattle as well.
Early in the gospel of Mark, the author claims that Jesus is angered when some people watched how he would react to a someone seeking help from him. They wanted to see whether he'd heal a man's withered hand on the Sabbath. He was angered they seemed more interested in seeing whether Jesus might violate a Sabbath rule than a helping a person seeking help.
In Matthew 5 (I looked this one up), verse 22, has Jesus teaching people not to take their anger out on others. He was especially strident about calling others evil; here is that verse in the NRSV:
These are not threats from God for some sort of supernatural punishment, but instead threats of human-caused punishment. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible makes the following comments:
Matthew 5 is especially doubtful regarding its historocity given the objective of the Matthew text (evangelize Jews in a way that arguged they could be both good Jews and Christians). Given we have no record of anyone ever miraculously healing anyone, the Mark passage is almost certainly at least part fiction.
I bring up the last passage in Matthew to continue to show the sheer hypocrisy of those that justify their prejudice against others. It's hard to justify the picture of Jesus in the gospels being someone that would get fired up about denying gay people equal rights. In fact when you look at who hurls the lies and who has hate on their side, it's fairly obvious WWJR against.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 11:33 PM
The cracks on the right continue to grow.
See Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/journals/law.ars/2008/11/06/wikipurge
"RedState, the conservative answer to Daily Kos, is already stocking up on ammo: They're launching "Operation Leper" to keep track of McCain campaign alumni who talk smack about Sarah Palin and make them "political lepers." Expect similar treatment for prominent conservative pundits who balked at the Palin pick, like Kathleen Parker and George Will."
Posted by: Gerry L | November 7, 2008 12:32 AM
We all need to pray mightily that Ted Stevens is not removed by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Evidently, Palin can - and likely would - select herself (!) to be his replacement. I think she would have a year or so (2010?) before needing to go through an actual election to stay in power.
Plenty of time to get all that good experience and stuff.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 7, 2008 3:38 AM
Enjoy the recriminations.
But if Obama doesn't pull of out of this spriral into a depression that we are facing, he will be a one term president.
It won't do any good to blame Bush, because the dems have the house and the senate NOW and Obama could rally them.
He has to act NOW! I don't want him to be another Jimmy Carter!
Posted by: Westhues | November 7, 2008 7:18 AM
FDR was re-elected, despite not curing the Depression in his first term.
Posted by: william e emba | November 7, 2008 9:38 AM
Seconding tacitus on (some) Americans' ignorance of geography, I recall a video of some guerrilla theatre group talking foreign policy with ordinary folks on the street. Among the props was a map of the world showing Australia clearly marked as "France". The deception passed unnoticed.
(And yes, of course they never show us the clips of the folks who catch on, just as in Jaywalking.) Even knowing that, it's still pretty astonishing.
Not to suggest that it's only Americans who display such an incuriosity about anything not USA-ian. We've got 'em too; folks who know more about the USA than their own country.
Posted by: North of 49 | November 7, 2008 2:43 PM
Gingerbaker:
I think not. After Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter Lisa to serve out another Senator's term, the legislature took that power away from him.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 9:06 PM