When Salon published the article, it and Savage were blistered by the national media as well as our own readers, who called the story appalling, outrageous, unethical and, well, sick.
On the other hand, among those who disagreed was one reader who wrote, "Dan Savage -- you rock! That is the most brilliant, inspiring and damn funny story of political sabotage I've ever heard. Thank you for having the courage to lick doorknobs!"
See?
Savage found himself charged with a felony, not for licking doorknobs, but for registering to vote in Iowa despite living in Washington state. On Page 5 of the story, Savage wrote about how ridiculously easy it is for nonresidents to register and vote in the caucuses. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, paid a small fine and was sentenced to a year's probation and some community service.
"Jokes about terrorism don't seem so funny anymore," Savage says now via e-mail, "and I wouldn't pull the same stunt today. Bauer and his crowd, however, continue to compare gay marriage to terrorism, which would be funny if it weren't so tragic/idiotic/revealing.
"Am I glad I did it? Sure. Would I do it again? Nope. Your endorsement of Ralph Nader? Far more humiliating a lapse in judgment in retrospect, wouldn't you agree?"
Now why would he want to bring that up?
Bauer quickly faded in 2000, and that political season had nothing on 2004 when it came to Salon saying things that, looking back, seem a little foolish. Or brilliant. Sure, if you'd like. Brilliant. Right.
Four days before the election, Texas politico Jim Hightower told Salon's readers, "Cheer up, progressives. Kerry will win."
"GOP's Worst Fears Coming True," read the headline on a piece by reporter Michelle Goldberg. She quoted at length an influential Republican pollster who had concluded that a huge minority turnout would send John Kerry to the White House.
"Looking back, I just didn't take seriously enough the possibility that culture war issues would lead to increases among Bush's African-American support," Goldberg says, citing "enormous racially mixed megachurches" she'd seen in her reporting about the gay marriage fight in Ohio, churches "that had transformed themselves into really efficient electoral machines."
"When I wrote that, I was already working on the book I recently finished about the growing power of religious fundamentalism in American politics," Goldberg says, "and it could be I was trying to curb the temptation to latch on to evidence that proved my thesis. But I'm sure I was also blinkered by wishful thinking."
Columnist Sidney Blumenthal detailed "The Unmaking of the President," explaining how Bush had frittered away an easy win and was doomed to defeat.
On the eve of the 2000 election, a column by Andrew Sullivan was headlined, "Why Is This Race Even Close?" His answer: "Because George W. Bush has campaigned better, proposed more forward-thinking programs and proved, in the end, that he's smarter than Al Gore."
Sullivan remains no fan of Gore, but: "Looking back, I was dead wrong about Bush," he says. "I believed Bush when he said he was a moderate Republican. In retrospect, Bush turned out to be far more intent on increasing public spending than Gore was. And I obviously didn't believe he would go so far as to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, legalize torture, add trillions to the debt and expand Medicare."
The world of sports provides ample opportunities for bad calls. There are even certain commentators who more or less make a living by prognosticating badly about sports, though I don't know why you'd want to bring that up either.
But if we're going to go with a representative call, it has to be Allen Barra's preview of Super Bowl XXXVI in January 2002, which Barra wrote as though the game had already been played.
"In one of the most lopsided games in Super Bowl history, the St. Louis Rams, scoring points the way they vote in Chicago -- 'early and often' -- slaughtered the flatfooted New England Patriots, 56-10," he wrote. "No, make that 56-9 ... To fans who enjoy pro football because of its capacity for domination, it was a classic. There was simply no doubt by the end of the game that the Rams were the best team in football."
Four days later, the Patriots beat the Rams 20-17.
Barra remains unapologetic. "I stick by my prediction," he says. "If they replayed the game I'd still pick the Rams to win." He adds that the Rams did win, "by six touchdowns -- in a perfect universe."
Get Salon in your mailbox!