The death of Michael Jackson; Mackenzie Phillips‘ incest accusation; Kanye West‘s uber-interruption; Meghan McCain‘s PG-rated (at best) Twitpic: One of these things is not like the others, one of these things does not belong.

On The Huffington Post’s list of Shocking 2009 Celebrity Scandals, the story of Meghan McCain’s Twitpic-inspired firestorm seems to stick out like a…sore thumb. What’s the real scandal here?

HuffPo describes it like this:

Meghan McCain tweeted this chesty photo illustrating her idea of a progressive night in. Controversy ensued and she made an empty threat to quit Twitter but instead tweeted a half-hearted apology for any offense her boobs may have caused.

“Chesty?” Is Bob Eubanks writing for HuffPo now? Are they afraid this picture would give people the urge to “make whoopee?”

The only scandal here is that anyone would object to this, and that it resulted in Meg promising no more Twitpics. It makes me seriously wonder what’s wrong with this country. It’s a really good picture, with the added artsy touch of black-and-white photography.

On the other hand, who could blame HuffPo for finding an excuse to publish the sexy, gritty image one

more time? One of the great attractions of Meg’s Twitter feed is that late-night, unfiltered, intimate quality she achieves, and this photo epitomizes that.

Still, this isn’t even my favorite Meghan McCain Twitpic this year. For my money, that honor goes to this shot of a reporter apparently interviewing Meg’s boobs. This one’s also not scandalous, but another example of Meg’s sense of humor about her pride and joy.

There were several disappointments at Thursday’s Crasher-gate hearing, but chief among them were Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan‘s continued insistence that the now-famous security breach posed no threat to the President, and the committee’s focus on Social Secretary Desiree Rogers‘ role in said breach.

Taken together with the media’s initial narrative on the Social Secretary’s Office, the right’s targeting of her, and a heated broadside from the White House press corps, it seems some are taking the Secret Service’s failure as an opportunity to settle scores with Desiree Rogers.

Initially, I shared the House Committee on Homeland Security’s consternation at Rogers’ absence from the hearing, but after further consideration, I’m not so sure. The committee members’ interest in Rogers seemed to involve spreading some of the blame for the Secret Service’s failure to turn away Michaele and Tareq Salahi, as they repeatedly questioned Sullivan as to whether the presence of a Social Office staffer would have prevented the breach. This is absurd on two counts.

First of all, this is the year 2009. You no longer have to actually be standing next to someone in order to communicate with them. The officers at that first checkpoint had an entire world of confirmation at their fingertips. The committee focused on the fact that there usually is a staffer present for state dinners, but they seemed ignorant of the fact that 99.99% of White House visitors are checked in by the Secret Service alone.

More absurd is the notion that the Secret Service needs backup from the White House social staff. If that’s true, Sullivan should just hang it up. This would be akin to Batman blaming a defeat on the absence of Alfred, the butler.

Since Rogers’ name first came up, however, there seems to have been a cauldron of resentment simmering just below the surface. A disgruntled former staffer came forward to complain about Rogers, and the right jumped at the chance to show how Rogers was yet another example of how Barack Obama is everything that’s wrong with the world.

>>>NEXT: A transcript of Ryan’s chat with Gibbs and a final defense of Desiree Rogers…

Also new is the fact that, as Sullivan says, “the officers are all on administrative leave, with pay” pending completion of the investigation. As far as I know, this is the first time the agency has said that there was more than one officer involved in the breach.

As we went to recess, I tried to question Sullivan about how many officers were involved, and if they had consulted anyone at all before allowing the Salahis onto the White house grounds, but one  of his aides body-checked me into the banister as Sullivan strode down the stairs.

Thus far, committee members from both parties have condemned the White House for not making social secretary Desiree Rogers available to the committee.

The way the White House and the Secret Service have been talking about this incident so far has left open the possibility that a less serious breach may have occurred. I contacted the White House to see if they could eliminate those possibilities.

As I said yesterday, the emails between the Salahis and Michelle Jones left open the possibility that the couple were not invited to the dinner, but may have been cleared for the arrival ceremony. A White House official told me that “the Salahi’s were not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason…Not being waved in means not being waved in for anything at all, or as (we’ve said), not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason.”

The emails also state that their names, ss#, etc, were submitted in case tickets became available. If there had been a background check done just in case they got in, and a computer record remained when the Secret Service looked them up at the checkpoint, it would mitigate the breach somewhat. Of the submission of the Salahis’ request, the White House official told me the following:

“No (there was no background check). No. On Friday November 20, Michele Jones’s office sent a request to the White House office of Public Engagement for two arrival ceremony tickets for the Salahis. That request was denied by the White House Office of Public Engagement later that same day.”

White House staff, including Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, have evinced frustration that their statements on this story have been questioned and dissected so, but they should understand that, knowing how vigilant Secret Service is, and knowing how vigilant the White House press office staff are, it’s not at all obvious that the Salahis should have been able to BS their way past a guy whose sole job it is to make sure they belong there, and then shake hands with the President and Vice President without any of the White House staff noticing they weren’t supposed to be there.

The White House also raises questions by not making WH Social Secretary Desiree Rogers available to testify at the hearing. Without her or the Salahis at today’s hearing, all that’s left is the Secret Service, who were eager to take the blame from day one, even before an investigation had begun.

Given the very best possible interpretation, the emails show that Michelle Jones was working to get the Salahis tickets to the arrival ceremony prior to the dinner, but explicitly tells them that the dinner has been full up for months. The emails leave open the possibility, however unlikely, that the Salahis might attend the arrival if tickets became available.

That leaves open the possibility that the couple passed through the first checkpoint as legitimate attendees of the arrival ceremony. I asked the White House about the arrival ceremony specifically, and a White House official told me that “the Salahi’s were not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason.”

Michele Jones never confirms either event for the couple in the emails, except to accept their thanks the following day.

The crux of their defense, then, is that they went to the White House just to check if Jones had managed an 11th-hour miracle, and they say in a thank-you email that they were, indeed, on the list. The email conveniently explains that their cellphone battery had died, so they wouldn’t have received any calls telling them not to go.

The White House and the Secret Service have now fairly definitively ruled out every scenario that could vindicate the Salahis. While their future as reality TV stars may be bright, it looks like they could face serious trouble for what looks more and more like a ridiculous security breach.

(Video of the interview with Congressman King starts at the 2:55 mark)

While they differ as to the reasons for concern, both King and Kessler rightly agree that, despite the reality TV angle and the Salahis’ own penchant for the ridiculous, this story is no laughing matter. While the Secret Service downplays the degree to which President Obama faces a greater number of threats than past presidents, the fact that he does is a well-established fact.

So far, the official story is that a uniformed agent at the first checkpoint admitted the Salahis after checking their ID and physically screening them, but did not verify that they were on the guest list for the dinner, thinking this would be done by a later post.

Assuming that there’s nothing more to the story, this was an unthinkable breach of security. Attempts by some to spread culpability to the absence of a Social Office staffer at the checkpoint completely miss the point. Any idiot can pass someone through a metal detector. The most important part of that first checkpoint is to ensure that the person has a reason to enter, that they’re not windpipe-crushing, anthrax-smuggling stealth assassins. It’s basically their sole reason to exist.

Both the White House and the Secret Service, however, were quick to dismiss the notion that the President was ever in any danger, based on the fact that the couple were physically screened.

Part of the problem the Secret Service faces is that they must necessarily fight this PR battle with one hand tied behind their backs. First of all, any perception that the President is/was vulnerable could easily encourage others to give this a try.

This is compounded by the fact that they are limited in their ability to reassure the public, since specific security measures are secret (hence the name “Secret Service”). They are extremely vigilant about this.

Still, at this point, it sends a bad message to downplay the seriousness of this incident. When the Secret Service completes its investigation this week, some pretty drastic consequences are in order.

Gawker is reporting — with photo evidence — that the Salahis are “polo buddies” with an influential state dinner guest, Indian Ambassador Arun Singh. Whether it turns out to be this specific connection or another (they have a lot of powerful friends), it makes a lot more sense that they had a helping hand into the White House than that the Secret Service got conned by would-be reality show contestants.

As the NYT reported yesterday, Bravo has now confirmed that a TV crew for the upcoming “Real Housewives of DC” was indeed trailing the Salahis, who told the crew that they were invited to the dinner. The Salahis are set to appear on “Larry King Live” on Monday to tell their side of the story. Through a lawyer, they deny “crashing” the event, so look for them to explain how they were left off the guest list, but were added to the White House clearance list.

What struck me was the Secret Service’s response. When I talked to spokesman Ed Donovan yesterday, he was quick to accept responsibility for the incident, even though no investigation has been completed. (Secret Service director Mark Patterson told Politico that they were “deeply embarrassed” — especially since it’s been confirmed that the couple met the President and Mrs. Obama on the receiving line). Neither he nor the White House could confirm or deny that someone within the White House had interceded on the Salahis’ behalf, and both have pointed out repeatedly that the couple were subject to the same physical security measures as the other guests.

While it seems counter-intuitive that the Secret Service, already under fire for cutbacks, would take the blame for this if it wasn’t really their fault, the alternative is arguably worse. It’s fairly simple to mitigate a relatively harmless, isolated slip-up.

On the other hand, the idea that the vapid, privileged stars of a reality show could be waved through security and into the White House would not play well with recession-battered Americans (or with luminaries who couldn’t score an invite), and the security implications of the People’s House becoming the brass ring of D-list prankdom are also far-reaching.

The possibility that the Salahis were admitted at the request of a foreign diplomat is just gravy on top of the red meat.

What also amazes me is the credulity with which the media reported this story. As Gawker puts it, “the Salahis weren’t just some randos who showed up at the White House and schmoozed their way past the Secret Service with their fancy clothes.”

Yet that’s pretty much how it has been reported. Perhaps the pop culture appeal of the moxie-laden gadabout who skirts the velvet rope was too powerful a lure to resist.

Update: Report from NBC Nightly News about how the Salahis got through that first checkpoint, and how they met President Obama.

Photo of the Salahis with Ambassador Singh from Gawker.com

The Salahis, owners of the Oasis Winery and the America’s Cup of Polo, are rumored to be part of Bravo’s upcoming “Real Houeswives of DC” reality show. Actually, there are more than rumors. In September, the Salahis were spotted being trailed by a Bravo film crew, and Michaele Salahi’s makeup artist reported seeing a TV crew filming them as they prepared to crash the state dinner. Though Bravo declined to make a statement yesterday (even to NBC News, part of its corporate family!), today Bravo reluctantly confirmed that a “Real Housewives” camera crew was ineed with the Salahis as they crashed their way to the most exclusive ticket in town. They’ve got a flair for the dramatic, as their cheese-tastic wedding video shows.Yes, they’re throwing doves.

NBC’s Brian Williams also says he saw the couple’s SUV turned away at the East Gate, at which point they got, camera and makeup people in tow, and went to the pedestrian entrance. (video below)

I spoke with Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan this morning, and he would only offer  that they had identified a checkpoint at which proper procedures were not followed, and that the incident would be investigated. He stressed that, no matter which checkpoint was the problem, “It’s on us.” He stressed, again, that the Salahis had been subjected to the same stringent physical checks (magnometer, x-rays, etc.) as the other guests.

A White House official tells me that the White House has called for a “full review of the incident” by Secret service.

The Secret Service isn’t saying which checkpoint was the problem, nor will they confirm or deny whether the Salahis were already on the grounds when the misstep occurred. This is an important distinction. Once you’re inside the White House gates, it becomes significantly easier to wander into someplace you don’t belong, especially with a crowd. It’s possible that a White House staffer walked them through the gates, perhaps for a legitimate purpose. The Salahis know a lot of people in DC, as their 2,000-person wedding guest list attests.

It would have been a challenge for the Salahis to have slipped past the first checkpoint. First of all, the Secret Service Uniformed Division are extremely, shall we say, detail-oriented. On my first day at the White House, I watched them turn away a very famous person that they see pretty much every day because he wasn’t on the list. He was only admitted when a White House staffer vouched for him.

Since then, I’ve seen countless people hold up the line trying to get in, most of whom really did belong there but weren’t on the list, including me. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your story is, if you’re not on the list, No…Soup…For…You!

Even if you decide that once in a million times, someone could slip through unassisted, what are the odds that it would be this couple, who were planning to slip through? It doesn’t seem possible.

The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been tasked with investigating this incident, but it will be interesting to see how they let this play out publicly. If the Salahis got onto the grounds legitimately, and then snuck into the dinner, it’s embarrassing, sure, but a much less serious security problem.

If, on the other hand, they just managed to talk their way past that first checkpoint, it points up a disturbing vulnerability. Even though they were physically checked, there’s a reason for doing background checks on White House visitors, especially ones who will be sharing dinner with the President.

He signs off the segment, in which he discusses the sex tape that features Prejean “by herself,” with a two, then three, fingered “Girl Scout” salute. Where to begin?

Here’s the segment. Keith’s salute is at the very end, and doesn’t appear in MSNBC’s version of the clip:

The gesture is either a fairly obvious attempt at shock humor, or an accidental one. Given MSNBC’s history of thinly-veiled entendre, and the context here, I’d say it’s the former. It’s ironic that he uses a Girl Scout salute as the fig leaf since, unlike the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl scouts don’t discriminate against gay people.

The joke is likely to delight many of Prejean’s detractors, embittered toward her over her support of California’s Proposition 8. Just as surely, it will offend many others who observe the double standard that Prejean points out in the segment. I find it emblematic of the wrongheadedness of the anti-Prejean narrative.

The Carrie Prejean story began with an honest answer to a divisive question at a beauty pageant. Asked if she believed that same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states, she stated her personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but also said that she was happy to live in a country where people can choose “same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.” As Jake Tapper pointed out, this position hews closely to that of President Obama.

She was immediately and viciously attacked by Perez Hilton, the judge who asked the question, using vile misogynist slurs. The rest of the media piled on by mocking her use of the term “opposite marriage,” elevating her to the status of media martyr. It was only then that she became useful to the National Organization for Marriage, and decided to support the dissolution of thousands of legal marriages.

The response to this was to make fun of her breasts, compare her to a Nazi and a dog, leak R-rated pictures of her, and now, delight in the revelation of this sex tape. The point of this is supposed to be to expose her as a hypocrite, which eludes me somewhat. She’s a model, so how do breast implants and sexy pictures make her a hypocrite? The fact that she sent a sex video to her boyfriend doesn’t make her a hypocrite, it makes her an awesome girlfriend. No, the real point was to embarrass and humiliate her. The effect was not to silence, but to amplify her.

What makes Carrie Prejean a hypocrite is her insistence that she wants to protect marriages by supporting laws that destroy them. If the left had focused more on that, and less on destroying her personally, Carrie Prejean would be a dim memory now. Instead, they get to be wrong right alongside her.

This is the kind of viral marketing that executives dare not even dream about.  In fact, while outlets like Gawker have come under fire for their use of sponsored content like Bloodcopy, the folks behind AMC’s “Mad Men” are reaping huge PR dividends for free.  Their personalized icons have swept over Twitter like a nuclear daisy.

If you’ve never heard of “Mad Men,” that’s kind of the point.  AMC’s series about an early-sixties ad agency is high on critical acclaim, but hidden away on basic cable.  The show’s pitch-perfect period reproduction takes you right back to the days of 3-martini lunches, chainsmoking everywhere, and the kind of casual racism and misogyny that make last year’s presidential race seem all the more miraculous.  If Proust had been smoking a cigarette, this show is what it would have tasted like.

It all started innocently enough, as I perused a link roundup at my other web home, Asylum.com, yesterday morning.  I came across the AMC “Mad Men Yourself” application, and gave it a whirl.  The site lets you create a stylized version of yourself patterned after the show’s opening montage.  I liked the finished product, but itwas taking too long to download, so I skipped it.

Within hours, the Mad Men icons began dotting my Tweetdeck, like some martini-swilling Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  This put me in an awkward position, as I had spearheaded a movement to convert the White House Press Corps to South Park avatars.  The South Park tweeple are a very insistent bunch.  I made a silent pledge to hold firm against the onslaught.

I knew I was in trouble, however, when the originator of the South Park trend, Jake Tapper, crossed over.  As the day progressed, more and more of my Twitter pals made the switch.  Then, Tapper told me about the Mad Men suits (although he called them “ridiculous.”  Is that some kind of hipster slang for “awesome?”).  I feel like I’m inside some kind of internet horror show, The Stepford Tweeps.

Viral marketing is hit-or-miss at best.  For every “Blair Witch Project” (spoiler: it wasn’t real), there’s a ham-handed stunt like Bloodcopy.  The beauty of something like the Mad Men icons is that, even if you don’t catch lightning in a bottle, you haven’t really spent much.  If you score, you score big.

The appeal of the Mad Men app isn’t hard to understand.  Everything about the series’ look bespeaks cool, much like another recent icon-generator, Obamicon Me, which lets you personalize the famous Shepard Fairey campaign poster.

Perhaps the popularity of Mad Men will rise like a Mercury rocket in the Age of Obama, where it’s okay to be hip and urbane, and to laugh at our bygone selves.  After 8 years of “flyover country,” maybe it’s time for a little reciprocal cultural exchange.

That still leaves me with my own avataristic dilemma.  I went back and re-did my “Mad Men” icon last night, but I still haven’t made the switch.  I will let you decide.

Tommy Christopher is a freelance writer, blogger, and online journalist based out of New Jersey and Washington, DC. He has covered the progressive political scene and the historic 2008 elections, including live coverage from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and becoming a freelance White House reporter in early 2009. This move follows a year in which he was able to break a number of big stories and was quoted in print and online by everyone from the LA Times and the New York Times to the Huffington Post and Hot Air. Tommy can also be found at his own blog: DailyDose.us. Follow him on Twitter here.