It will be many years before the definitive book about the 2008 Presidential campaign is written, probably long after most of the participants are dead. After all, it took over eighty years for a truly definitive look at the Election of 1920, and more than forty for a similar volume to be written about the 1960 Election. However, for those of us who are political junkies and lived through it, Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin

To a large degree, what makes Game Change interesting is the fact that, thanks to “deep background” interviews with campaign staffers and, quite clearly from the content, several of the candidates themselves, Heilmann and Halperin give us a side of an election that ended just seventeen months ago; the inside. The more lurid and controversial revelations are already well-known thanks to press coverage when the book came out; Harry Reid’s description of Obama as an “articulate Negro”, Bill Clinton’s comment to Ted Kennedy that Obama would have been getting both of them coffee just a few years ago, and, of course, the sordid, sick tale of John and Elizabeth Edwards. Because of those, many have criticized the book as more tabloid than journalism or a first-draft at history.

Those criticism are unfair, though While there are those kinds of gossipy revelations in the book, Game Change is also chock-full of interesting behind-the-scenes details about a campaign that, for better or worse, is likely to go down as one of the truly significant elections in American history.

For understandable reasons, Heilemann and Halperin spend the most time covering the epic knock-down drag-out battle for the Democratic nomination, and in doing so they provide very interesting insights into the characters of both the current President and the current Secretary of State. The story of Barack Obama’s rise, for example, from junior Senator from Illinois to Presidential candidate, and then Democratic frontrunner, for example, reveals a man who is so self-assured of his own destiny and the rightness of his opinion that it borders on arrogance. Clinton’s case is more interesting because she clearly acknowledged to campaign staff, and later Obama herself, that her biggest problem wasn’t her record, but a 250+lb former President named William Jefferson Clinton.

For Republicans, Game Change is likely to be a depressing affair. Not so much for it’s concentration on the Obama/Clinton race, but for the inside details it provides to seemingly confirm that the McCain campaign was the worst-run major party Presidential campaign in modern American history. It started at the beginning, really, because McCain’s decision to enter the 2008 race can pretty much be seemed up as “Well, I’ve got nothing better to do.” McCain’s heart was never in the race, and he was not the same candidate he was in 2000. Had it not been for the fact that he was up against a fractured, and disorganized, Republican field, it’s possible he would not have won the nomination at all.

But the worst indictment of McCain in the book comes in the description of two instances that demonstrate clearly that he does not possess the temperament or decision making abilities that are required of a President. First, of course, is the selection of his running mate. Halperin and Heilemann tell us that McCain was far more set on the idea baffling idea of picking Joe Lieberman to be his running mate than reported publicly, to the point where there was very little discussion of any other candidates. The only other candidate that was seriously mentioned was Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, but when it’s clear that he really wouldn’t have done anything for the ticket, the name Sarah Palin comes up for pretty much the first time, only two days before the selection was to be made public. There was no real vetting of the Palin candidacy, and nobody bothered to look into her record as a candidate or a Governor to determine if she would be ready for the rough-and-tumble world of national politics. Clearly, she wasn’t as the months of September and October 2008 made all too apparent.

The second incident that reveals McCain’s flaws was his response to the September 2008 financial crisis. Not only didn’t McCain have any real idea what was going on, he showed little desire to find out, and, unlike Obama, no desire to get involved politically to deal with it. Yes, he famously “suspended” his campaign to go to Washington to hold a White House summit on the crisis, but, once there, he barely participated and essentially ceded the ground to Barack Obama. It was a stupid, impulsive decision on his part that reflected badly on him, and his advisers. Honestly, if that’s the way he would have made decisions as President, I’m glad he didn’t win.

There are other tidbits in Game Change that political geeks will love. For example, remember that famous video of Hillary Clinton breaking down in tears at a forum just before the New Hampshire Primary ? Well, that happened only an hour after she had a conversation with her Campaign Manager telling her that they were probably going to lose New Hampshire and that she should drop out of the race if they did. Ironic, considering the fact that it was that incident that is widely credited with lighting the spark of the comeback that put the Granite State in Hillary’s column. Also, Heilemann and Halperin devote an entire chapter to Bill Clinton’s disastrous campaign swing through the Palmetto State before the South Carolina primary that is a definite must read.

In short, for anyone who watched the 2008 campaign unfold on television and the Internet, Game Change is a must-read if only to get at least part of the story of what really happened. The rest will have to wait until sometime in 2050 I’m guessing.

None Found

The question conservatives should be asking though, is how did we get in this position in the first place? How come, over the course of two elections, Democrats were able to take back the White House and amass substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress, allowing them to enact this sweeping legislation with no Republican votes – and huge defections in their own party? How could a generally right-of-center nation be taken over by liberals from Chicago and San Francisco?

The answer, of course, is that none of this would have been possible without George W. Bush — or more broadly speaking, Bush era Republicanism. While they were in power, Republicans squandered an opportunity to push free market health care solutions. When they did use their power to pass major legislation, it was for policies like the big government Medicare prescription drug plan, which was (until today) the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society. They took earmarks and doled out farm and energy subsidies. They earned a reputation for fiscal recklessness and corruption and incompetent governance. President Obama ultimately forced through the health care bill in spite of the political consequences to his party because he’s ultimately a true believing liberal. But it was only because of the failures of Bush-era Republicanism that an ideological liberal with little experience was able to capture the presidency on the abstract notion of change.

Spot on.

From a conservative perspective, Bush was an absolutely horrible President. He doubled the national debt in eight years, pushed through the TARP bailout, bailed out the auto companies even after Congress had rejected the idea, and gave us Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the PATRIOT Act. He was, as I said shortly before he left office, the worst President of my lifetime.

If it weren’t for Bush, we likely would not have had Obama, and we would not have ObamaCare.

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

H/T: United Liberty

• CNN: 59% Of Americans Oppose ObamaCare
• CNN: 59% Of Americans Oppose ObamaCare
• Sen. Jim Webb (D., VA): The Health Care Reform Debate Is Not Over
• Sen. Jim Webb (D., VA): The Health Care Reform Debate Is Not Over
• Meet The New Big Spender, Same As The Old Big Spender

PPP’s newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately

Of course, what evidence there might be in favor of this majority “belief” is left unstated.

None Found

NEW YORK – Former McCain campaign senior adviser Nicolle Wallace says Sarah Palin’s book “Going Rogue” is “based on fabrications,” and that the basis for Palin’s depictions of her and former McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt as villains “took place entirely in her imagination.”

In a statement to The Rachel Maddow Show, the former McCain spokesperson repeatedly used the word “fiction” to describe Palin’s narrative and echoed criticisms by other former McCain staffers.

“She probably has a legitimate complaint that things could have been better conceived and executed,” Wallace said. “A book about that would have been painful but not entirely unfair,” Wallace told an msnbc producer in an off-camera, on-the-record interview.

Here are a few of the things that Wallace had to say:

On how Couric was chosen to interview Palin:

“The whole notion there was a conversation where I tried to cajole her into a conversation with Katie [Couric] is fiction…. I am not someone who throws around the word ’self-esteem.’  It is a fictional description.  Katie Couric was selected because we did evening anchors…. I did not advocate an interview for anyone I am friends with.”

(…)

On her overall reaction to Palin’s book:

“I think she has probably a legitimate complaint that things could have been better conceived and executed. A book about that would have been painful but not entirely unfair. What she gets wrong is this personalization that [Steve] Schmidt and I were these lone villains — and that took place entirely in her imagination.  Just like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, we were consensus driven…. I think she fixated on me from very early on.  She hated me from the beginning.  I try not to take it personally, the fact is that she wrote a book based on fabrications.  She gave a brilliant convention speech — other interviews that inspired support.  But this book is a bizarre fixation on things that everyone else has moved on from.”

Video:

None Found

WASHINGTON (CNN) – John McCain’s former presidential campaign manager Steve Schmidt is the latest McCain adviser to cry foul over accusations Sarah Palin has penned in her yet to be released memoir “Going Rogue.”

Excerpts obtained by The Huffington Post characterize Schmidt in an unfavorable light, particularly in reference to the prank phone call Palin received from someone pretending to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy. “Right away, the phones started ringing,” Palin writes. “One of the first calls was Schmidt, and the force of his screaming blew my hair back. ‘How can anyone be so stupid?! Why would the president of France call a vice presidential candidate a few days out?!’”

In a telephone conversation with CNN’s John King, Schmidt said how he is described and portrayed in the book is “fanciful. [And] total fiction.”

In the excerpts, Palin also claims Schmidt tried to put her on a strict eating regimen, and in a conversation with Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign policy adviser, he had blamed the campaigns problems on Palin’s “postpartum depression.”

Sit back and get some popcorn folks, this little night of the long knives is going to be very fun to watch.

None Found

Top aides to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign hit back at Sarah Palin Friday, after news reports revealed that the former vice presidential nominee’s soon-to-be-released book extensively criticizes the campaign’s press strategy – with many of its hardest shots aimed squarely at campaign manager Steve Schmidt.

Schmidt, she writes, was “grim-faced” and “cool,” and tried to pin the campaign’s troubles on what he claimed was Palin’s post-partum depression, and even went to so far as to try and dictate her diet.

(…)

Former McCain strategist John Weaver slammed Palin for using the book for “petty and pathetic” score-settling.

“Sarah Palin reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the movie ‘Harvey,’ complete with imaginary conversations. All books like these are revisionist and self-serving, by definition,” Weaver wrote in an email to POLITICO. “But the score-settling by someone who wants to be considered a serious national player is petty and pathetic.”

“The problem wasn’t who her interview was with, the problem was her interview,” he added. “Couric asked no trick questions. This just seems to be an attempt to obscure as bad a performance since Roger Mudd asked Ted Kennedy that simple question.”

But don’t take their word for it, judge for yourself:

Watch CBS Videos Online

None Found

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sarah Palin’s new book reprises familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven’t become any truer over time.

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Some expamples:

PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers’ offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield services company.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a small donation is.

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, ”you’ll have to be brave enough to fail.”

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama’s stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin’s views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain’s vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ”taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street.” A week later, she said ”ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.”

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ”instrumental in bringing folks together” to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ”it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.”

Yep, she did endorse TARP, although I will grant her the credit of saying that her response on the issue was incoherent to say the best so maybe she really didn’t mean it.

PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, and ‘’showed us how to get out of one. If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax once and for all.”

THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October 2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to climb.

What, you expect Sarah to read a history book.

PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don’t want ”help” from government busybodies.

THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington.

Of course, it’s worth remembering that we’re talking about the woman who was for the Bridge To Nowhere before she was against it.

Wow, and the book hasn’t even been released yet.

None Found

If the early leaks are any indication, the biggest story that will come out of Sarah Palin’s forth coming book Going Rogue: An American Life will be the war between the Palin camp and the McCain camp over the 2008 campaign:

The rollout for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s highly anticipated and score-settling memoir began Thursday with all the orchestrated stagecraft, wild accusations, inconvenient leaks and media fascination that characterized her campaign as Sen. John McCain’s running mate during the 2008 presidential race.

In the book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” Palin contends that the McCain campaign stuck her with a $50,000 bill for the cost of her own vetting, botched the announcement of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy, outfitted Palin with all those infamous costly ensembles, and shielded her from reporters. Even so, Palin goes on to belittle two famous interlocutors, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, according to the Associated Press, which found and purchased a copy of the book before its sale date.

(…)

In the book, Palin accuses the McCain campaign of leaving her a $50,000 bill, the amount, she suggests, that her vetting cost the campaign. She asserts the thousands of dollars in clothes purchased from some of the country’s most exclusive department stores was explained to her as all “part of the convention.” Palin also says she carefully revised a statement about her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy, with her teenage boyfriend, Levi Johnston, the father, only to see the campaign’s less delicate version distributed to the media.

A spokeswoman for McCain’s Senate office, Brooke Buchanan, declined to respond to the charges.

But multiple former McCain officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, as the senator had not authorized any participation, disputed Palin’s claims.

“John McCain offered her the opportunity of a lifetime, and during the campaign it seems that, for all of her mistakes, she is searching for people to blame,” said one former senior official in the McCain campaign. “We don’t need to go through this again.”

Regarding the $50,000, several high-ranking McCain aides said Palin was most likely conflating the cost of her vetting, which the McCain aides counter was actually minimal, with the fees she spent to defend herself from various accusations of ethical wrongdoing in her home state.

Speaking with Winfrey, Palin also argues that the McCain campaign approved of her performance in her disastrous interview with Couric of CBS.

“Do you think that was a seminal, defining moment for you, that interview?” Winfrey asks.

“I did not,” Palin responds. “And neither did the campaign. In fact, that is why Segment 2 and 3 and 4 and maybe 5 were scheduled. The campaign said, right on. Good. You’re showing your independence.”

“No sentient person would look at that and say that,” assessed one former senior McCain campaign official.

In her book, Palin issued harsh words for the media as a whole and for Couric in particular. According to AP, Palin described Couric as “badgering” and a sufferer of low self-esteem. (Couric declined, through a spokesman, to comment.) The former governor, who in the book says her dream was to be a sportscaster alongside Howard Cosell, takes aim at ABC anchor Gibson, whose interview preceded Couric’s. He “peered skeptically” at her over his glasses, Palin writes, and had no interest in the substantive issues. (A spokesman for ABC did not return a request for comment.)

More to come, I’m sure.

None Found

Someone please tell Mike Huckabee to shut up:

Palin is the party’s rock star.

“Some of the people who had excoriated me and really been very dismissive of me for views that I had taken, and labeled me anything from a populist to an ignoramus — the same people have been very defensive [of] and laudatory to Sarah Palin,” Huckabee noted, adding that he’d invited her to appear on his weekly Fox show but “could never get any contact.”

“I’m glad she’s getting the props — I know I’m not nearly as attractive,” he said with a guileless grin.

(…)

Neither was he quite so unperturbed by the Palin pick: “I was scratching my head, saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute. She’s wonderful, but the only difference was she looks better in stilettos than I do, and she has better hair.’ It wasn’t so much a gender issue, but it was like they suddenly decided that everything they disliked about me was O.K. . . . She was given a pass by some of the very people who said I wasn’t prepared.”

I don’t agree with either one of you, Mike, and I’ll never vote for either one of you either, but stop whining.

None Found

“I think we should thank John McCain for picking her, in terms of how it helped us win in 2008.”

Yea, you probably should.

• Defending Rand Paul
• Orrin Hatch: Hillary Clinton Would Be “Interesting” SCOTUS Pick
• Orrin Hatch: Hillary Clinton Would Be “Interesting” SCOTUS Pick
• Hillary Clinton Says She Intends To Remain Secretary Of State
• Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Talks About ObamaCare Lawsuits