The revelation that Panetta informed Congress that the CIA was “concealing significant actions” from both houses for eight years (and from himself, it seems, for four months) has led to calls from Democratic lawmakers for a full investigation into both the program, and whether any laws were broken concealing it from Congress. Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Anna Eshoo believe the deception was likely illegal, in breach of National Security Act provisions that require disclosure of such programs to congressional leaders. The pair, along with five other Democrats, have written a letter to Panetta demanding a full investigation.

None of the lawmakers who've now been briefed on the program, or Panetta, will disclose what exactly the secret program was. CIA and congressional officials have said it has nothing to do with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or torture, or warrantless wiretapping and spying either. That's led to speculation that it could have something to do with "executive assassination rings" reporting to Vice President Dick Cheney that Seymour Hersh discussed in a speech in March. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer and Dylan Ratigan seemed to surprise Eshoo by asking directly if the controversial program was the assassination group Hersh referenced, but she wouldn't comment. Eshoo did tell the Huffington Post's Sam Stein that when House Intelligence Committee members first heard about the secret program, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans."

And while Republicans are trying to downplay the controversy, even Rep. Pete Hoekstra seemed to acknowledge the secret program was extreme. Although he denies it was ongoing for eight years -- he describes it as "an on and off thing," while Democrats dispute that -- Hoekstra said it was something Congress never would have approved, except "maybe on Sept. 12."

A Washington Post story Friday indirectly poured cold water on the assassination-ring theory by quoting lawmakers and CIA officials saying the secret plan wouldn't qualify as a "covert action" that would have needed congressional approval. (An assassination ring certainly would.) There has been little other speculation about what the program could have been, and Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.

Two things are clear: First, Newt Gingrich and other Republicans owe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an apology for demanding she resign or be impeached when she said in May that the CIA had regularly misled Congress on intelligence and interrogation operations. Panetta seemed to admit as much with this disclosure. Republicans should be as angry as Democrats are about the breach, and mount an immediate investigation into exactly what the secret program was, and why it wasn't disclosed to Congress.

Second, congressional leaders should expect a big fight with the Obama administration as they try to strengthen and expand their oversight over CIA and other intelligence operations -- and they need to toughen up for it. The president has already threatened to veto a bill that would require certain sensitive operations to be disclosed to the Intelligence Committee members of both houses of Congress (right now only the so-called Gang of Eight, the top bipartisan leadership from both houses as well as intelligence committee chairs) get such briefings.

Likewise Obama has opposed all of Congress's threats and demands to establish some sort of investigative body to look at Bush-Cheney lawbreaking and decide on whether and how those responsible should be punished. Congressional leaders have been silent lately about whether they'll proceed on their own. Panetta's revelation shows how much remains to be known about the secrets of the last eight years. As much as Obama claims he wants to look forward, not backward, these revelations will continue. And they threaten to become part of his legacy, not just Bush and Cheney's, if his Justice Department doesn't get into gear and get to the bottom of the CIA and other agencies' lawless ways.

I continue to marvel at the latest installment of Palinpalooza. I'm not a fan, but I have to admit, I've never seen anyone like her: She gave a maudlin speech blaming the national media for attacking her, then decamped for a fishing vacation....with the national media, so she could do more complaining and playing the victim, this time up close and personal with Matt Lauer and Kate Snow. It's hilarious. Is there a word for a hypocrite who's too clueless to realize she's a hypocrite? Brazen will have to do.

I debated GOP strategist Ron Christie on Hardball Wednesday about Palin's national political future. He says it's bright, I believe it's over, as far as national elective office goes; she could make a lot of money as a public speaker or a Fox commentator. Here's the video (text continues below):

To get ready for the segment I drilled down into reporting on those 15 pesky ethics complaints, the ones she said cost Alaska "millions of dollars." In fact, the Anchorage Daily News reports that the complaints cost the state $286,000, and the most costly set (there were several) had to do with Troopergate, which had exploded before Palin was tapped by Sen. John " Why, God, Why?" McCain. The most costly Troopergate complaint apparently involved one Palin herself made, hoping the investigation would exonerate her.

And while Palin described the complaints as the work of Democratic political operatives and east coast media types looking for dirt, all but one of them were filed by her constituents in Alaska. That one exception was a complaint by a DC watchdog group about her $150,000 clothing gift from RNC. It was ultimately dismissed, but it dealt with an unclear area of campaign-finance law.

The rest of the complaints were all filed by Alaskans. Four of the complaints were filed by a Republican former ally of Palin's, Andree McLeod, who turned on her because she felt Palin was cutting ethical corners, hiring cronies and using a private email account to conduct public business outside the realm of public records. Many of the complaints predated her vice presidential nomination. And at least one of the complaints was clearly justified; Palin had to pay back about $8,000 in travel expenses for her children. Another is still pending: A seemingly reasonable complaint about Palin charging the state per diem when she's living in her own house in Wasilla rather than the governor's mansion.

So the complaints didn't cost Alaska "millions," they weren't filed by outside Democratic operatives, and most of them weren't frivolous. Is Sarah Palin going to keep telling these lies on her self-pity tour? And why is so much of the media letting her get away with it?

I sympathize with people who are struggling to explain why Jackson's death is a big cultural deal, in the face of people saying, Enough! -- although I ultimately came down on the side of Enough! He was an enormous talent who was also a civil rights pioneer, no matter how much surgery he had to reshape his once-lovely black face. He changed music and he changed the world. His epic personal troubles were huge news when he was alive; why would his shocking death be different? Still, a lot of people got fed up with the 24/7 mythologizing, and Jackson's contradictions were part of the problem. You can't just make one strong case about his cultural, racial or political importance. Yes, he attended BET awards and Motown anniversaries and stayed a part of the black community, while clearly struggling with his own self-image as an African-American man; yes, he was a singular eccentric talent who somehow made himself palatable to an unprecedented mass audience (and ultimately uninteresting to serious music fans for at least the last 15 years). Yes, he apparently loved his children very much; and loved other people's children in a way that showed, at best, very bad judgment.

So Jackson supporters have had to try, often a little too shrilly, to make the case for his global greatness, not mere celebrity. I've enjoyed seeing the culture critic Toure on MSNBC this past week talking MJ, but when he said before the memorial that the Jackson Five's emergence in 1965 helped debunk Daniel Patrick Moynihan's controversial 1965 report on the decline of the black family, well, he was reaching badly.

Was it reaching for Smokey Robinson to open with condolence letters from Diana Ross and Nelson Mandela? For Queen Latifah to read a poem from Maya Angelou? For the children of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to compare him to their father? You be the judge. I gave up trying to find an "objective" perspective early on -- it's been clear for a while now that much of the black community embraced Jackson fiercely after his legal troubles, and even more so after his death. If he didn't come to my mind as a civil rights hero before his death -- and he probably still won't -- that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't one.

In fact it was tough to maintain any lasting perspective on the weirdly uneven memorial -- moving tributes (Smokey Robinson, Magic Johnson, Brooke Shields; yes, Brooke Shields, talking about their sweet weirdo child-star bond) gave way to schlock (his backup singers and dancers for the abortive tour singing "We Are the World"). Certainly the tribute hit some wrong notes: Motown's Berry Gordy's eulogy was interminable, given as much to honor Gordy's judgment as Jackson's talent. He had the nerve to mention Jackson's "questionable decisions," but of course, not his own role in taking the name "Jackson 5" away from Michael and his brothers after they rebelled against Motown rule.

I appreciated a lot of what the Rev. Al Sharpton said, but crediting him with Obama's election is silly. And telling the Jackson children "wasn't nothing strange about your daddy. It was strange what your daddy had to deal with," well, that's simply not true. You can think Jackson was treated badly -- and I do -- without thinking he did nothing to incite doubt and derision. The three Jackson children are going to have to deal with a lot of their poor late father's strangeness over the course of their life. But then again, nobody tells the whole truth at a funeral.

It was impossible not to be moved when Jackson's daughter, Paris, came to the microphone in tears, and told the crowd: "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine ... and I just wanted to say I love him so much." It was one of the few moments in the memorial when Jackson's simple humanity, not just celebrity, showed through. And yet it also seemed another example of celebrity excess; did that little girl really need to be onstage at the Staples Center, crying about her father? (The CNN Breaking News alert trumpeting that quote was the day's lowest moment by far.) And the Jackson siblings, all in sunglasses, and the brothers in matching black suits and yellow ties? At a certain point, the memorial matched Jackson's career: It started impressively but ended in ... just too much.

Maybe this was silly, but I hoped someone would touch on the suffering and sickness that led Jackson to abuse his body and abuse a staggering array of drugs. What does it take to want to literally be sedated, put under, anesthetized to escape life? I realize as I write that that was a forlorn expectation; Jackson got to the point he did because nobody around wanted to be honest about his life; why would they be honest in death? May Jackson find the peace he never found in life. And may we now return to our regularly scheduled programming. 

Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett broke the story back in September, examining whether Palin supporters who made money on the controversial sports-complex deal helped the Palins build their home on Lake Lucille. Max Blumenthal added details Saturday in the Daily Beast. Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore has been on the beat, too, and she's cross-posted some of her reporting on the Huffington Post. But Palin's private attorney, Thomas Van Flein, singled out the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times in his rambling (like Palin's speech), menacing letter -- when to my knowledge the Times, Post and MSNBC had never mentioned the allegations of scandal.

Naturally, the lawyer's letter, with reference to the scandal, made the Washington Post today -- just what Palin wanted? Mention in the New York Times and on MSNBC can't be too far behind.

To be fair, it must be noted that the FBI's Alaska spokesperson denies that Palin is either under investigation or close to indictment, according to the Los Angeles Times. But Van Flein's letter (published in full at the end of this post) is certainly cause for media outlets that didn't plan to cover the "Housegate" allegations to do so.

Certainly I hadn't planned on writing about "Housegate" until Van Flein made it news. Personally, I don't think there had to be a looming scandal for Palin to make this odd decision. I think Sarah Barracuda has actually been Sarah Barraquitta, as a friend quips, for most of her life, moving through five stays at four different colleges to get her degree, leaving her oil and gas commission post after just more than a year, and now stepping down as Alaska governor because it's no longer fun. Daily Kos diarist Walt Starr found video of Palin criticizing Hillary Clinton for complaining about her media coverage; clearly Palin could learn a lot from Clinton if she wants to have a political career, and not merely be worshipped by a cult of adoring right-wing fans.

Wild Bill Kristol continues to peddle the line that Palin's shocking move could be a good way to jump-start her 2012 presidential campaign, but almost no Republicans seem to agree (except maybe that other GOP gambler, Bill Bennett). Karl Rove thinks it hurts her chances, but Palin backer John Coale (the husband of Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, and allegedly a Democrat) tells the New York Times: "She has a following that will jump in front of a plane for her. If she takes this time to develop that base, she could be a real force in the Republican Party, and maybe run."

Interestingly, the first time AKGovSarahPalin twittered about Van Flein's press release, she linked to Van Susteren's Web site. But since Van Susteren had only posted a truncated version of the statement, an hour later "Palin" had to tweet another link to a PDF of the full statement (it's at the bottom of this post). Note to "Palin" on Twitter: You need to change your bio: "Creating New Energy for Alaskans as governor of the 49th state!" isn't terribly accurate anymore.

Here's the full text of Van Flein's statement: 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE On July 3rd, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin announced her intent to resign her gubernatorial duties and transfer the powers of Governor to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell. Almost immediately afterwards, several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the "real" reasons for Governor Palin’s resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers.1. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin. Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact. The history of the Wasilla Sports Complex is publicly known. Contrary to the insinuation that as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin "personally" oversaw bidding, construction, funding and accounting for the project (and thus, the allegation goes, "embezzled" from the project), the truth is far more mundane, and publicly available: Curtis D. Menard was instrumental in spearheading the effort from conception to realization of the Wasilla Sports Complex. He directed the steering committee that was responsible for placing the issue before the voters of Wasilla and subsequently passed. He remained chairman of that committee through the design and construction of the facility. He was an ardent supporter and leader of civic, educational and athletic endeavors within the community as well as an advocate of the continued success of the Sports Center. http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=114. Thus, as any basic fact checker would learn, the Mayor of Wasilla is not listed as "chair" of the Steering Committee. As Mayor, Governor Palin did appoint the committee, another fact readily verifiable, and she was publicly on record supporting the need for such a facility—as was most of Wasilla. "Wasilla weighs sports facility" published December 6, 2001 and available at While her public support of this project was deemed pivotal by many, the actual construction, bidding, financing and other day-to-day management of the project was not in her scope of authority as Mayor. In addition, Sarah Palin was then criticized by some of not showing enough interest in the project. The Frontiersman reported that at a public meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, an opponent of the project "accused Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin of staying quiet about the arena because of her campaign for Lieutenant Governor." "Sports Arena Campaign gets Rolling" http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2002/02/21/news6.txt (February 22, 2002). Further, this was a highly public project, approved by the voters, and subject to public bid requirements. As described by the City of Wasilla itself: The city uses competitive means for the purchase of all goods and services as required by Wasilla Municipal Code 5.08. The city also utilizes contracts and price agreements established by the State of Alaska, the Western States Contracting Alliance and other cooperatives or agencies when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The city believes in open, fair competition and strives to ensure that all vendors have equal opportunity to compete for city business. The City of Wasilla operates under a decentralized purchasing system. This means purchasing decision up to $5,000 is made independently by the departments in the city (with the exception of Management Information System purchases). When the estimated amount for goods or services is between $5,000 and $9,999, departments are required to obtain three quotes prior to purchase. The departments may utilize the services of the Purchasing/Contracting Officer (PCO) for this process or may do it themselves; however, when this processed is selected, the PCO must sign off on the final product prior to purchasing or contracting. For purchases beyond $10,000, the city requires all departments to contact the PCO who will utilize the city's bid process according to Wasilla Municipal Code 5.08. The bid process is initiated through either an Invitation to Bid (ITB), utilized when the city knows the specifications for the purchase; or a Request for Proposal (RFP), utilized when the exact specifications or process is unknown. http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=360#82. Accordingly, the Sports Complex was publicly bid, in accordance with City and state law, and was accounted for in the time and manner all public projects are handled. The Mayor of Wasilla, be it Sarah Palin, or her successor, did not handle the funds, or the materials, for this project. To thus suggest she "embezzled" is as false as it is impossible. The additional claim of "proof" of wrongdoing is the allegation that the Palins purchased building materials from Spenard Builders Supply—and that this company may have provided supplies for the Sports Complex. Prior to the construction of Lowe’s and Home Depot within the last few years in Wasilla, Spenard Builders Supply was the primary building supply company in Wasilla. It can hardly come as a surprise that it would sell materials to small homeowners or that it would also bid to supply commercial contracts. One would be hard pressed to find a home, cabin or outbuilding in the Mat-Su Valley in which Spenard Builders Supply did not sell at least some of the materials. The Palins built their Lake Lucille house using Todd as the general contractor. Todd’s family owns a hardware and building supply business in Dillingham. He is no stranger to construction, or to rolling up his sleeves and doing work. The Palins used a combination of personal savings, equity from the sale of their prior home, and conventional bank financing to build the house—like millions of American families. The deeds of trust are recordable public records. Basic journalism and fact checking would confirm this. The Sports Complex was built in 2002. It is now 2009. While the Federal Government has a process to follow, and that process sometimes takes time, we can categorically state that we are not aware of any "federal investigation" that has been "pending" for the last seven years. We are aware of no subpoenas on SBS regarding the Palins. We are aware that the Federal Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation have been helpful, responsive and diligent in prosecuting the email hacker and in cleaning up Alaska’s corrupt legislators. To be blunt—this "story" was alleged during the campaign, evaluated then by national media and deemed meritless. Nothing has changed. To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right." Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable. Thomas Van Flein, for Governor Sarah Palin 1 Wayne Barrett, a writer for the left wing Village Voice, published these insinuations, on October 7, 2008 in a story entitled “The Book of Sarah” available at http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah. This was written in the style of one pretending to be amazed that so many people in a small town like Wasilla appear to know one another, support one another, and take on big projects together. Apparently that is uncommon in New York. Rather than recognize that leaders of a community often mobilize to accomplish projects, the writer offered this up as an unusual and questionable association of special interests. 

First came news that Alaska governor Sarah Palin wouldn't run for re-election, confirmed by CNN around 3 pm ET. Minutes later, Alaska television station KTUU reported that Palin had actually announced she will resign her office at the end of the month.

In an angry, rambling press conference that will rival Gov. Mark Sanford's as a stunning example of a bizarre public meltdown, Palin basically blamed her decision on her national critics, who she said were blocking her agenda and costing Alaska taxpayers money.

"You are naïve if you don't see a full court press right now on the national level picking apart a good point guard," Palin said, a reference to her days as Sarah Barracuda, high school basketball star. What does a good point guard do? "She drives through a full court press protecting the ball, keeping her head up…and passing the ball so her team can win. I know when it's time to pass the ball for a win.

"I really don't want to disappoint anyone with this decision," Palin continued. "I cannot stand here as your governor and allow millions of dollars to go to waste. I don't know if my children are going to allow it either…This decision comes after a lot of prayer and deliberation." Palin said all of her children endorsed her decision, and she closed by complaining about people mocking her Down's Syndrome son Trig, with little Piper standing by her side.

"In the words of General MacArthur, we are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction," Palin said, as she turned the podium over to the apparently shocked Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

There was rolling hilarity and a total news vacuum on television for about 10 minutes after the news first broke. CNN's Rick Sanchez wondered aloud if Palin could be pregnant again – shocking Candy Crowley – before interviewing Frontiersman reporter Andrew Wellner, who says the press conference came as a total surprise to local reporters.

"She didn't take any questions, she said she could be more effective outside of government," Wellner said, reading his notes to Sanchez. Then CNN got tape of Palin's announcement.

This is very weird. We'll update when we get more information.

Update: Getting weirder. CNN is now running the entire speech; earlier, it only ran a clip from her resignation statement onward. It's crazy stuff. For the first 10 minutes or so, Palin rambled weirdly about all the good things she's done for Alaska, on energy and budget issues, sounding kind of like a Furby who memorized a lot of information but has no idea how to repeat it in a human-like way.  The tone and inflection were completely off.

Then she began her list of grievances with national critics.

"Over the last nine months I've been the subject of all sorts of frivolous accusations...The state has wasted millions of your dollars" investigating those accusations, Palin complained, blaming "the politics of personal destruction." Suzanne Malveaux is desperately asking Candy Crowley to "make sense" of this. Crowley's talented, but she's not up to this task. Sense will be made only when we get the back story.

Update II: According to Think Progress, the spectacularly wrong Palin supporter Bill Kristol phoned into Fox News to say: “If I had to guess, we just saw the opening statement of the 2012 campaign.” Meanwhile, on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell says she's hearing from GOP sources Palin is out of politics "for good." Who do you believe?

And here's the Palin speech video:

I wanted to clear up one question the CBS News story raised for me: whether Palin or her staff had gotten media inquiries about the Alaska first couple's involvement with the fringe party. Certainly Salon asked about it multiple times, and got no reply from either Palin's staff or McCain's, but I can't speak to whether other outlets also asked about the story. All I know is, they should have. 

Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair story opened the door on this new round of reporting on the Palin-McCain feud. But where Purdum's piece was long on juicy gossip from anonymous sources, the CBS News story delivers names, dates and clear details on exactly what Palin and Schmidt were fighting about: in this case, Palin's effort to whitewash her husband's long association with the fringe group. 

Salon took the lead in reporting on the Palins' ties to AIP, from David Talbot's interview with Palin-admiring party leader Lynette Clark to the Oct. 10 investigative piece that set Palin off: Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert's deep exploration of how AIP members aided Palin's rise to power, and how she paid them back, from firing Wasilla city employees they opposed, to trying (unsuccessfully) to appoint one party leader to the Wasilla City Council. 

When CNN covered Blumenthal and Neiwert's scoop, Palin demanded that the McCain campaign respond. "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today -- two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote to Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed." Schmidt fired back: "Ignore it. He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america." 

(Although Schmidt comes off as the stand-up guy here, it's nice to see that the GOP default, even when accused of supporting occasionally violent secessionist whack jobs, is always simply "We love America," as though Democrats don't. The implication is: "Todd Palin loves America -- unlike that Jill Biden!") 

But that wasn't enough for Palin. She dragged out the Big Lies -- secession isn't what the AIP's about, and anyway, Todd wasn't really a member. 

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed." 

Admirably, Schmidt wasn't having any of it. 

"Secession," he wrote to Palin. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country. 

"We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this." 

It's not quite true there were "no media inquiries" on the links between the Palins and AIP; Blumenthal and Neiwert did, in fact, contact Palin's staff, as well as the McCain campaign when Palin didn't reply. "I contacted Palin’s staff personally, explained the nature of my query and who I was writing for, and gave them my contact info," Neiwert confirms in an e-mail. "I never heard back from them. I also sent an e-mail, which I’ve forwarded to you." The e-mail, to press@mccain08hq.com, laid out in detail what the pair found about Palin's ties to AIP extremists. They got no reply. It's hard to believe no other reporters queried Palin and the campaign about her ties to extremists, but then again, looking at the lackluster, personality-driven reporting on the 2008 election, maybe it's not that hard to believe. 

Still, it's nice that even if Schmidt and the campaign wouldn't talk to us directly about the story, they weren't willing to lie about Palin's ties to the AIP, as she requested. It's also fascinating that Palin chose to focus on the passing reference to her husband's ties to the party, when the story was about her own. With Mark Sanford and John Ensign out of the 2012 race, Palin supporters had to be hoping her star would rise. But while the 2008 GOP infighting makes everyone involved look bad, in different ways, one thing comes through clearly: Palin is both deeply uninformed, as well as arrogant about being clueless. It's a deadly combination, and her GOP enemies are likely to stop her before Democrats have to.

Thanks for sharing, Mark Sanford. Now go away.

Just like former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman finally did, Sanford must eventually realize it's time to go. Not only did he deceive his staff, his state and his family about his Buenos Aires sojourn last week, now he's admitting he lied when he publicly and dramatically confessed to those earlier lies. Republicans used to insist their jihad against President Clinton over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about his lies, not about the sex, but that was never true: It was always about politics. With Sanford, it's the reverse. The growing number of reasons for the governor to resign are in fact about his lies – and more than that, they're about Sanford's capacity to do his job – but the state GOP's failure to pressure him to leave is all about politics.

Leaving his staff and other state officials in the dark about his whereabouts last week, unable to reach him even in an emergency, was a clear breach of Sanford's duties, and that alone would seem to have been reason for impeachment, or at least for party leaders to ask him to resign. His apparent slow-motion crackup this week, unburdening himself to reporters about his midlife crisis/love affair, providing details nobody needed to know -- dancing with other women on boys' nights out and other weekend-bachelor getaways -- raises major questions about his judgment and stability.

Yet so far Republicans have been slow to pressure Sanford to resign -- and that's politics.  The only reason some of the state's GOP leaders aren't riding Sanford out on a rail is they don't want fellow Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer to succeed him. Bauer was expected to vie with other party members for Sanford's job in a GOP primary next year (Sanford will be term-limited out of office) and he'd get a leg up if he got to run as the incumbent. Attorney General Henry McMaster, one of Bauer's expected GOP primary opponents, wouldn't even agree to investigate whether Sanford used public funds to travel to see his mistress (according to the New York Times, his staff was caught Twittering that Bauer had to be prevented from becoming governor: "Cannot allow a disaster to be replaced with catastrophe," said Trey Walker, a McMaster aide.) On Tuesday came word that McMaster is now looking into the possible abuse of public funds.

If I've lost all sympathy for Sanford, I have a little bit more for his publicly humiliated wife, Jenny -- but not much. In a dramatic but feeling-free public statement last week, she agreed to try to work things out with her husband but sounded creepy Christian right themes, reminding him from Psalms 127 that "sons are a gift from the Lord" (if they had daughters, his cheating would be less abominable?) and sounding more like she was reconciling with a business partner than a lover. And perhaps she was: Sanford is a talented political operative in her own right, running her husband's campaigns. Maybe she needs to take a page from Hillary Clinton and stop subordinating her own ambition to his.

At the very least, I wish she'd stop the public scoldings. "He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her," Sanford told the AP, about her insistence her husband not visit his mistress. "We'll just see what kind of spirit of reconciliation he has." I'm not betting Sanford will be able to save either his job or his marriage -- but I really only care about his job.

To me Sanford deserves the most scorn and shame not for his affair, but for his cynical effort to reject federal stimulus funds due to his low-income, high-unemployment state. Even Republicans criticized him for grandstanding, trying to get a jump on a rumored presidential run in 2012. Just as South Carolina teenager Ty'Sheoma Bethea became the public face of the state's "Corridor of Shame," the decrepit low-income majority-black schools that generations of governors have let decline, Sanford became the face of conservative white privilege and indifference. He's hurt his party twice, first with his cruel political showboating and now with his histrionic midlife crisis. But if his stimulus rejectionism wasn't enough to ruin his career, his behavior in the last few weeks may well be.

I've resisted writing about the Sanford spectacle to date because it was tawdry and, really, I'm tired of having to talk about sex scandals in either party. Life is hard, marriage is harder, and we all need to grow up about modern love, or at least stop judging. Unfortunately, some political sex scandals are worse than others, and more newsworthy, because of the way they pull the politician's staff, family and public agenda down with him. (I really hope that when Sanford leaves the public stage, he'll take John Edwards with him.)

Still, even if adultery is a nonpartisan problem, it's hard not to notice how the worst family-values hypocrites tend to be Republicans, from Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, to Mark Foley and Larry Craig, to David Vitter, John Ensign and now Sanford. If they can't practice what they preach, maybe these Republican hypocrites should at least stop preaching. (They could at least open marriage up to gay people, since they're botching the institution so badly.) Mark Sanford destroyed his 2012 presidential chances last week, and he's putting his current job at risk every time he talks. His party should help him do the right thing, and resign. 

But I am, in fact, on vacation --- and my staff and family members know where I am, I promise! See you all next week.

AP/Kamran Jebreili

Iranians in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, light candles in front of the image of Neda Agha Soltani, who was reportedly shot to death during a protest in Tehran Saturday.

I haven't been able to shake the image of the Iranian martyr, 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan, dying, live, on a cellphone video in Tehran on Saturday. The way her eyes follow the camera -- follow us, the global bystanders, seeming to demand that we do something -- has haunted me ever since.

I'm not the only one: Neda is a hero worldwide, a top search term on Google, a trending topic on Twitter. I mostly agree with Kate Harding that over-identifying with Neda is silly -- we are not Neda, and mourning her isn't exactly bringing down the Iranian government -- but she's catalyzing a crucial global reaction nonetheless. Even the late news that Neda herself wasn't terribly political, just a philosophy student who loved to sing, doesn't blunt her impact. Women are banned from public singing in Iran.

Paradoxically, I want the world to stand up for Neda -- and stand with all the other Iranians, especially the Iranian women, fighting and dying for freedom this week. But I think President Obama has had nearly perfect pitch in his statements on the struggle there. Now he's holding a Tuesday press conference that most people believe will feature some new statement on Iran. We can only hope he will recast his already strong statements condemning the Iranian government's "unfair and violent" crackdown and pledging to "stand with" the Iranian protesters. Amid the din of braying Republicans, which has somehow become as big a story as the Iranian uprising itself, no one seems to be listening to Obama.

Instead, unbelievably, people seem to be listening to deranged neocons and Republican opportunists demanding Obama do more. Guys like William Kristol and Michael Ledeen, who are wrong about everything. Paul Wolfowitz, who with Kristol and Ledeen sold us the Iraq quagmire, compares Iran to the Philippines, and says we should do what we did to Ferdinand Marcos and tell him it's time to go. Is Wolfowitz really so blinkered that he doesn't remember Marcos was our ally? How do we make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khameini step down?

Congressional Republicans, though, have been the worst. Neocon grifters are paid well by think tanks and the Washington Post to be wrong; Congress members, who have to face election, should be a little bit smarter and more honest. Sen. John McCain in particular should be ashamed of himself; he really knows better. The callow Eric Cantor may in fact not know better; he's a camera hog and an opportunist. The Republicans calling Obama "weak" and "passive" have no formula for an effective U.S. reply to the protests. We have no diplomatic relationship with Iran, so we can't call home our ambassador and staff there. On "Hardball" today, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman said Obama should be demanding a "recount," as though Iran's Guardian Council would listen. Even the recount the council completed, which showed that in 50 cities there were irregularities -- more people voted than live there -- only led the Council to reaffirm the election's validity.

In Congress, Sen. Richard Lugar has been the lone informed GOP voice backing the president; we can only hope others listen. And really listen, because Obama's been saying more than he's getting credit for. In Friday night's conversation with CBS's Harry Smith, these two paragraphs didn't make it onto the broadcast -- but the White House posted the full exchange on its blog. It's a strong defense of the protesters claiming their civil rights and condemnation of state violence:

What you're seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and -- and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for. And I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is -- and is not.

When that statement got ignored, the White House released this one on Saturday:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

What more is Obama expected to say? We'll find out Tuesday. Robert Gibbs gave a hint in Monday's briefing. "I think he has been moved by what we've seen on television," Gibbs said, adding that the president was particularly affected by images of women braving the crackdown "to speak out and be heard."

So expect to hear that Obama was moved, especially by the women of Iran and their bravery. I'm sure some reporter will ask Obama if he watched Neda die, and his answer will be interesting, and likely both moving and circumspect. I think Obama has said all he needs to say on this issue, and he's right about the bigger stake: The U.S. can't be seen as meddling. The Iranian story is still unfolding. Stay the course, Mr. President, stay the course. 

The positive reaction to my tangling with the Fox host over his four-year crusade against the murdered Dr. George Tiller has been heartwarming: sometimes surprising (thanks, Gawker!) and sometimes more predictable (I think everyone in the crowd at the Women's Media Center awards Wednesday night had seen the encounter; I got many hugs from strangers). I was moved by the love from family members who disagree with me on abortion, but who called immediately after the show to tell me they were proud of me and loved me.

On the downside, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't horrified hearing O'Reilly say, "You have blood on your hands," given that the last person he accused of that wound up dead. My fear probably reflected a little bit of grandiosity; I don't think I'm in danger. But it was shocking to hear those words in my ear and to know they were going out to O'Reilly's huge audience.

About my own performance, I'm fairly self-critical. I didn't expect to go into a debate on late-term abortion, or the details of Dr. Tiller's practice. I was asked to discuss my reasons for criticizing O'Reilly's crusade against Tiller, and why I hoped he would turn down his rhetoric. I was sandbagged, but that's the O'Reilly game plan. I should have been prepared for anything. Confronted with the testimony of "Dr. Paul McHugh" that Tiller approved late-term abortions for frivolous reasons, I couldn't retort with the fact that McHugh is notorious for defending Catholic priests charged with sexual abuse; is a founder of the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation," which publicized the notion that frequently, memories of child sexual abuse are false; a crusader against the transgender movement and an abortion opponent. McHugh is hardly the renowned and dispassionate Johns Hopkins scholar O'Reilly depicted.

And while I gave O'Reilly credit for running the interview in full on Friday, I should have been prepared for him to hit me again Monday, when I couldn't defend myself, with selective re-editing that took out my criticism of him and made me look evasive and/or stupid. I wasn't surprised by Mary Catherine Ham playing his ally, but I was slightly saddened that Juan Williams joined the pile-on. Oh well. Live and learn.

A lot of people have asked me, Do I regret it? and Would I do it again? I don't regret it, but I wouldn't do it again. As I wrote last week, I thought it was important to accept O'Reilly's challenge since I'd criticized him on Salon and on "Hardball." I stand by that. I also thought it might advance my goal of turning down the heat on violent, demonizing, dehumanizing rhetoric that may be part of the uptick in vigilate violence we've seen, from the Pittsburgh gun nut who killed police officers in April to Dr. Tiller's murder to the Holocaust Museum shooting last week. That was probably more grandiosity on my part. I don't have enough charm, charisma or personal persuasive power to make someone like O'Reilly turn down the heat or engage in dialogue. But I'm still glad I did it, because it showed people, particularly women, that you can stand up to bullying and survive.

Almost a week later, I'm still getting a fair amount of e-mail about it. It's a great spiritual exercise to try to focus on messages like this (and there were dozens):

I have to admit going into the interview with O’Reilly Friday night that I was on his side; I don’t think you should have called him whatever it was you called him on another news channel (it seems so insignificant now after that "interview" with him!). But … it is clear you are a sensible, thoughtful individual who believes what she says, and I think O’Reilly WAY overstepped his bounds in this "interview" that was clearly a hit-piece from his side. I have mindlessly followed him for years, but after Friday night’s attack on you, I don't know if I will ever feel the same way again. And while I disagree with your view on late-term abortion, I APPLAUD you for not being intimidated into changing your mind to accommodate the blasts he directed to you. 

And not like this (and there were hundreds):

I Can only hope that when your children or their children are born they have an egg beater shoved into their Skull and their brains scrambled after they leave the Uterus. I heartfelt hoped it could have been you.

You can read lots of other comments like that on my Friday blog post. We had to close the thread early (after 1,386 posts) because it got so ugly. O'Reilly must be proud to have such educated and compassionate viewers.

But I'll try to make this my last word on O'Reilly for a while. My outrage is just oxygen fanning the flames of his hatred, and if it's really my goal to turn down the heat, I'll avoid talking about, thinking about and certainly watching O'Reilly for the time being.  And I'd advise others who share that goal to do the same. 

I was surprised when so many people I respect told me not to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." I'd attacked Bill O'Reilly for his jihad against Dr. George Tiller, and he asked me on to discuss my "accusations." I thought that was fair. I could explain my point of view to his face; to say no felt like being a punk. But smart and supportive friends, family, co-workers, Twitterers and media stars all over the country reached out and suggested I skip it.

I thought about it, but not for long. I like doing TV. I'm not terrible at it. I criticized him, I should have the guts to repeat it to his face. I also need to say that when I announced I'd said yes, every one of the doubters, and more, sent me great advice and good wishes. (Thanks to Media Matters who, unbidden, just had staff start sending me clips to watch, about O'Reilly's lies. And if you're not on Twitter, well, Twitter rocked for me.) My daughter coached me; so did my litigator ex-husband, so did my friend and Salon co-conspirator Kerry Lauerman. It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!

His producers also helped by doing that thing they do: "Hey, Bill really respects you for coming on the show! He wants to have a conversation! It'll be fine!" (And they promoted my appearance on the show by identifying me on the Web site as "Joan Walsh of Slate.com.")

Well, it was so not fine. I think the high or low point was when he shrieked at me, "You have blood on your hands!" At one point he also either told me to "Shut up" or "Be quiet," I can't remember. (If I'm wrong about that, when I see the clip, I'll correct it. UPDATE: Actually, he shouted "Stop talking!") He called me "vile." I think I said he was vile, too. There were a couple of "I know you are but what am I?" moments that I'm not totally proud of. It was a kaleidoscopic nightmare, a TV acid trip, and I don't do acid. It almost seems like O'Reilly does, but I don't think so.  The man is driven by demons. God bless him and save him.

Now all I can really do is wait for the edited, taped version to air at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET. And as one media friend, urging me not to do it (while sending me great newsy tidbits of O'Reillyisms that I used), explained, I'm not likely to feel good about it: "This is not about debate nor offering an alternate point of view. This is the Harlem Globetrotters, and if you're too good to be the Washington Generals, he will make you into them by editing and lying." I grew up loving the Harlem Globetrotters, so man, that really hurt.

But actually I can do one more thing besides wait: I can lay out what I remember saying (I should have taped it) so we can compare the final, edited show. Which may differ significantly, or it may not.

(UPDATE: I'm going to give "The O'Reilly Factor" credit here: The show was pretty much how it went. Exactly how it went, as I can recall. I will post it later)

First of all, he wasn't Genial Bill O'Reilly, grateful to have a left-wing critic to spar with. From his opening words he was curt. He instructed me to answer his very simple questions directly. (I got a Guantánamo kind of vibe; do I have to?) And basically, like at Guantánamo, he just asked the same loaded question over and over seeking the same answer: Do I think there should be any protections for late-term fetuses?

I started calm. I acknowledged that late-term abortion is the most angst-producing of all reproductive rights issues, but it only accounts for 1 percent of the abortion in the U.S. -- and most of the women who do it have heartbreaking reasons. I tried to make the point, repeatedly, that it's sad that there are two versions of reality on this: the O'Reilly version, where Tiller is a killer, and worse, a profiteer, and the feminist version, where Tiller is a hero, because he performed this legal but rare procedure in dire circumstances for women who were diagnosed late in pregnancy with aggressive breast cancer; for a 9-year-old girl, raped by her stepfather, who didn't know she was pregnant; for women who found late in their pregnancies that their babies had brain and heart deformities that would kill them early in their lives, but not without a lot of surgery and suffering.

If I'm sorry I did the show -- and I'm not yet sure I am -- it's only because of one thing: He used me to try Dr. Tiller again, postmortem. He brought out uncorroborated stories he claimed he'd never shown before: a 13-year-old girl (I couldn't see her or verify her story) who claimed Tiller killed her baby and had her deliver it in a toilet. He featured psychiatrists who from a distance challenged Tiller's findings that women were in danger if they delivered late-term babies. He continued his "profiteering" charges, claiming that Tiller charged $6,000 per abortion; I said, "Bill, you've always said it was $5,000, so that's interesting! And I know he did some for less and pro-bono." I think that's when he cut me off and denied that, but I'm not sure. But, jeez, it did get worse. He also accused me of calling him "a vile accomplice" to Scott Roeder, and I jumped in, "I called you vile, but I never called you an accomplice." On both these recent shootings I've made clear the responsible parties are the shooters, I told him. Woo-hoo! We'll see if it airs.

What else do I remember? It's getting lost in a haze of post-adrenaline marveling at the surreality of the whole thing! I told him that he was within his rights to think late-term abortion should be illegal, and that he should work to make it so. But right now it's legal.  I compared his position to that of gun opponents. We can legally, under various circumstances, own guns. But some gun opponents would  like most guns, especially handguns, to be illegal. What if those folks started a crusade against gun dealers, maybe picking out one in particular, saying he had "blood on his hands," "he should be stopped," all the O'Reilly Tiller quotes? 

Sadly, Bill cut me off and derided that comparison as stupid, and went back to asking me his one apparent question: if late-term fetuses deserved any protection. I hemmed and hawed -- I hate that I did that, but as I said, though I'm ardently pro-choice, I'm Irish Catholic, and I was raised to think abortion was wrong -- but in the end, I support the law as it is. My overriding principle is that I believe this very tough choice can only belong to women. It might have been then he said, "You have blood on your hands!" Not sure; we'll watch the video.

Shortly after that he started badgering me about whether I'd call Dr. Tiller a hero, and I strangely bobbed and weaved until reality beckoned, and I said, "Yes, he's a hero!" Well, it was over then. He had what he wanted. His audience could see what I was (you fill in the blanks there). I believe he repeated that I have blood on my hands, but I'm not sure. I might have said he has blood on his hands. It wasn't pretty.

At the end, I threw several things at him I expect will be cut, but I'd be thrilled to be wrong.  (UPDATE: I was wrong.) They are all factually correct.  I mentioned O'Reilly's attacks on liberals like Rosie O Donnell, Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore for whipping up possible violence against the right. I also talked about O'Reilly's tragic previous connection to the slaughter of liberals, almost a year ago, by wingnut Jim David Adkisson. It's chilling. Just like Scott Roeder, unbelievably -- is there really a God? I believe there is but sometimes there's precious little proof -- Adkisson shot his prey in a church. He'd railed against "liberals," repeatedly -- and police found the collected works of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage in his house.

O'Reilly shut up as I made those last two sets of points, and so if I had to bet what would be cut, it would be that. Oh well, I tried.

Watch O'Reilly yourselves tonight, and weigh in here. Maybe he'll run the uncut version! If he does, I'll apologize. In the meantime, I'll leave you with the probably really pathetic uncut version of the "Talking Points" I had prepared for O'Reilly, almost none of which got used. I'm a little embarrassed because they make me look like a liberal Pollyanna, a lamb ready to lie down with the lion -- to be eaten! Live and learn.

Thanks for having me Bill, maybe this is the first step in what I talked about on my blog: Dialing down the extreme rhetoric and hate. If we can sit here and talk calmly, maybe we'll set a good example for others. My basic issue is that we are a nation of laws, and abortion is legal. Late-term abortion is legal. It's heart-wrenching, and it gets a lot of attention, but we should note that only 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are after 21 weeks. What bothers me, Bill, is that you started a crusade against a doctor who was doing his legal job. You have an enormous audience, the top show in cable, and I think you have a responsibility to think about the impact of your words. And on the issue of abortion, there's a terrible history of violence in this country. At least four doctors have been killed, multiple clinics have been bombed. Dr. Tiller himself had been shot twice in 1993, Bill. His clinic had been bombed and repeatedly vandalized. He was in clear danger, and yet you attacked him, 42 times over four years, and at least 24 times you called him a "baby killer." (That's from the nonpartisan fact-checker Politifact.) You accused him of "murder," "you said he had blood on his hands," you said he "had to be stopped," and the people of Kansas were a "disgrace" for not stopping him -- even though he was acquitted by the courts multiple times of various legal charges against him. I know you have decried vigilante justice, and I believe you mean that, but we saw vigilante justice in this case. Every time I've written about it, Bill, I've been sure to say you did not cause it.  The only person responsible at this point is Scott Roeder, unless we find he had formal accomplices, no word of that so far. I'm just saying that in the wake of Dr. Tiller's tragic murder in a church, no less, you might have expressed some remorse. Instead, you turned your show into a pity party, and made yourself the victim, and honestly, Bill, I don’t often agree with you, but I thought you were better than that. I was disappointed. That's what I said. If you really wanted to be fair and balanced, you could have said in every segment, "Some call him Tiller the baby killer, others call him Dr. Tiller, the hero, because he has performed this legal but rare procedure for women in dire circumstances: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer; for a 9-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, who didn't know she was pregnant, for women who found late in their pregnancies that their babies had brain and heart deformities that would kill them early in their lives, but not without a lot of surgery and suffering. The two sides probably can't meet, Bill, but there is another side. And again, only 1 percent of abortions are late-term abortions, taking place after 21 weeks. One percent, Bill. I am a pro-choice Irish Catholic. I have agonized for years, but I am pro-choice. I have one Catholic aunt who works at Planned Parenthood, escorting women past clinic protesters. I have another Catholic aunt who loved Obama's economic policies but couldn't vote for him because of abortion. I love them both, and they love me. After prayer and soul searching I came to believe the only answer is that this is the woman's choice. We live in a pluralistic country, Bill, people disagree. People don't agree on when life begins. They're not sure the right course here. So abortion stays legal. People stay uncomfortable with it, for sure. It's true. But it is legal, and if you don't think it should be legal, work within our great democracy to change the laws. Finally, Bill, you yourself have demonized folks on the left for saying things that you believe could lead to violence: You've railed against Hollywood, you've railed against Rosie O Donnell and Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore for saying things you believed were irresponsible and could foment violence. Just last month, you criticized Google Maps for making it easy to find the homes of people who gave money to Prop. 8, because they might get hurt. Antiabortion crazies regularly published the address of Dr. Tiller's home, church and clinic. So I think you're inconsistent on these issues, you call out the left if you think their speech could endanger conservatives, or just Americans, but I'm a pariah for raising the same questions about your Tiller speech? I don't understand it, but I hope we've improved the terms of the debate tonight.

Epic fail! What was I thinking? I'll be back after I watch the final clip with a reaction.

Oh, and while you're waiting: Media Matters has clips of O'Reilly calling Dr. Tiller a "baby killer," without any attribution, which he denies doing.

Update: Watch the segment here.