Embedded in Iowa
DES MOINES--The photographers started yelling as Hillary Clinton boarded the helicopter.
She was kicking off a weeklong aerial tour of this crucial, must-have, make-or-break state, but a tall man in a cowboy hat behind her was blocking the all-important shot as she made her way inside. Sensing trouble, Clinton popped her head back out the copter door and gave a thumbs-up, prompting cheers from the camera crowd.
A day later, Barack Obama's staff had set up a photo op as his bus pulled up to a community center in the Iowa town of Cherokee. But the Illinois senator, who has a certain disdain for political ritual, just walked in the door without waving or acknowledging the cameras -- eliciting groans from the TV crews.
Covering the Iowa caucuses means long hours of tedium in pursuit of fleeting moments: the right visual, the sharp comment, the flash of emotion. Every campaign stop -- Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Davenport -- seems to be two hours from every other stop, requiring long drives across the flat, frozen landscape.
With the state's caucuses set for Jan. 3, much of the media mob is here, and their sheer numbers have relegated New Hampshire's primary, a mere five days later, to secondary status. Most East Coast journalists prefer New Hampshire -- easier to fly to, key towns closer together -- and there is a shared sense among political operatives and their chroniclers of being stranded in the heartland for the holidays. At a wine-soaked dinner with Clinton aides and two dozen journalists at the Centro restaurant here, the talk was as much about kids left home and presents unbought as about polls and tactics.
Every voter I spoke to at political events here was undecided, even though they had seen their favorite candidates two or three times. That means much of what has been written about Iowa could turn out to be screamingly wrong, much as predictions of Howard Dean's victory four years ago melted away.
The challenge for journalists on the trail is that the candidates say the same things over and over again, and their constant presence loses its novelty. Even a former president of the United States becomes old hat. That's why Bill Clinton teamed up last week with Magic Johnson, the better to attract TV cameras. And it worked: The Bill/Magic photo wound up on the New York Times front page and warranted a piece in The Washington Post's Style section.
Little wonder, then, that so many contenders now import celebrities to draw media attention. Obama has Oprah, of course; John Edwards has Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt, and Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris. It's a gimmick, but it works.
There is no bus anymore in presidential politics. Yes, some of the candidates have been rolling out press buses or vans, but in the "Boys on the Bus" sense, there is no single bubble in which the journalistic pack travels. Even the heavily covered Clinton campaign has only a half-dozen national correspondents who tag along day after day, far less than similar campaigns in the past.
This is in part because news organizations, especially the broadcast networks, have cut back on such expensive travel for their front-line troops. And it's in part because many journalists fear the Stockholm syndrome of being embedded with the same unit for weeks on end. The result is a Hertz campaign, in which reporters in rental cars chase after multiple candidates.
A down-in-the-snow visit here yields a different picture of the campaign than the shards that make their way onto television screens and into print. And nowhere was that on clearer display than in successive appearances by Clinton and Obama.
From the moment Clinton took the hand-held mike at a barn in Johnston -- a converted barn in the middle of a subdivision, that is -- reporters were nudging each other about the transformation that had taken place. Gone was the steely, controlled figure who often recited her talking points without slurring a syllable. In its place was a humbler woman speaking in softer, even intimate tones, about childhood foibles and the meaning of friendship.
In front of a huge banner -- "Working for Change, Working for You" -- friends and constituents of the New York senator attested to her warmer side. Some of the tales were moving, especially that of Shannon Mallozzi, a self-described "desperate mother" who secured Clinton's help in hospitalizing her brain-damaged daughter.
"My perception of her was probably a media-cultivated one," Mallozzi said. "I thought she was a bit remote."
With 11 cameras rolling, Clinton described how she took off her thick glasses in school "so boys would notice me," and how her childhood friend Betsy Ebeling -- also in attendance -- would guide her and point out the cute ones. When Clinton talked about the war, it was to recall a captain she had met at Walter Reed who lost his arm and had suffered a brain injury.
Some journalists reacted with a dose of cynicism. One said Hillary had reinvented herself as Mother Teresa. Another said it was pretty late in the game for such an effort. The kinder, gentler approach generated a smattering of stories -- including a New York Times piece headlined "After Long Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour" -- and some cable chat. But there was more talk about the tactic than what she had actually said.
If Clinton has a likability problem, Obama is at the opposite end of the scale -- a man of considerable charm and ease who seems to inspire his supporters. His challenge is to prove that a newcomer three years removed from the Illinois legislature is ready to be president.
At a foreign policy forum staged at an airport hotel, Obama barely cracked a smile or paused for a joke. The banner du jour read "Judgment to Lead," with five American flags arrayed behind the candidate.
The point was for him to be validated by five national security heavyweights, including Clinton administration veterans Tony Lake and Susan Rice. Lake was the most openly partisan, saying he was sick of political consultants -- even as Obama's consultant, David Axelrod, sat outside the room -- and preferred the "politics of authenticity" to the "politics of artificiality." Rice, an African American, made a not-so-veiled reference to Obama's race, saying he "embodies the many different strands of our national heritage."
From a lectern, Obama read a short speech in a flat monotone, and as he fielded audience questions, he assumed the role of a stern professor. Gliding confidently from Iraq to Iran, from Israel to China to Darfur, he also noted that he had spent three years on the Foreign Relations Committee and that his father was from Kenya.
"That is the experience I will bring to the office, not the mind-set of fear we've been fed since 9/11," he said. Unlike Clinton, with her tales of schoolboy flirtations, Obama had something different to prove. But he broke no new ground, and the event got little more than brief mentions in a handful of newspaper stories.
There was another reason why Clinton and Obama barely made a ripple in the news cycle: They didn't mention each other's names. Journalists thrive on attack politics, their copy filled with jabs and counterpunches as a race nears its climax. And on these December days in the cold-weather contest that is Iowa, there were none to be had.
Out of Balance
Hillary Clinton has had a rough time on the airwaves. From Oct. 1 through Dec. 15, comments about her on the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox evening newscasts were nearly 3 to 2 negative, compared with more than 3 to 2 positive for Barack Obama and 2 to 1 positive for John Edwards.
In a typical comment about Clinton, says the study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, NBC's Andrea Mitchell said: "Critics say her best known Senate vote, on Iraq, was driven by politics, not by principle." Clinton was evaluated more often than all her Democratic opponents combined.
Among Republicans, the center found, Mike Huckabee fared best with 50 percent positive comments from journalists and those interviewed, followed by Fred Thompson (44 percent positive), Mitt Romney (40 percent), Rudy Giuliani (39 percent) and John McCain (33 percent).
Overall, the Democratic contenders drew 47 percent positive coverage on the broadcast networks and the Republicans 40 percent. Among the newscasts, the study found Fox's "Special Report" to be the most evenly balanced in its news reports on candidates of both parties.
Furthermore . . .
I'm against obsessing on individual polls, but the trend is clearly that McCain is coming on strong in New Hampshire:
"Senator John McCain of Arizona, whose bid for the Republican presidential nomination was all but dead this summer, has made a dramatic recovery in the Granite State 2 1/2 weeks before the 2008 vote, pulling within 3 percentage points of front-runner Mitt Romney, a new Boston Globe poll indicates."
Hold on--all but dead? Or deemed all but dead by the media?
"McCain, the darling of New Hampshire voters in the 2000 primary, has the support of 25 percent of likely Republican voters, compared with 28 percent for Romney. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has slid into third place, with 14 percent."
The story also says Obama "has opened up a narrow lead" over Hillary, 30-28. One problem: The poll's margin of error is 4.9 percent. So both races are essentially dead heats (which is still good news for Obama, of course).
Interesting tidbit: McCain's gains are coming among Republicans, not the independents who powered him over Bush eight years ago.
Never mind ? Was that Politico story about Rudy's security expenses for his girlfriend overblown? The Weekly Standard's Matther Continetti notes:
"The New York Times has looked into the accusations that Rudy Giuliani's office paid for travel to the Hamptons to see then-mistress Judith Nathan through 'burying' the expenses into reimbursements paid by obscure city agencies. The Times found that 'all eight of Mr. Giuliani's trips to the Hamptons in 1999 and 2000, including the period when his relationship was a secret, were charged to his own mayoral expense account, according to the documents.' So it would appear any accusations of financial impropriety on the mayoral office's part during this period are unfounded.
"What made the Hamptons story cause trouble for the mayor's campaign, however, weren't accusations of financial impropriety. Trouble was, the story reminded folks of Giuliani's infidelity. It came on the heels of bad Bernie Kerik news. It drove the storyline that Giuliani's personal judgment would become a major (and perhaps losing) issue if he won the GOP nomination. And it coincided with the beginning of Hillary Clinton's decline in prominence on the Democratic side."
Some pundits are already discounting Rudy's chances--haven't they been doing that from the beginning?--but National Review's Jim Geraghty has a more upbeat assessment:
"Let me offer a countertheory to the 'Rudy is in freefall' storyline offered by Time's Michael Duffy. At the base of it is my longtime theory that Rudy will remain in okay shape until it's a two man race, and that for him to win the nomination, he needs the last remaining Not Rudy candidate to be too bruised to triumph.
"Iowa, for now, appears likely to be won by Mike Huckabee. Maybe Romney comes back, but for now, assume the polls don't shift much between now and January 3.
"New Hampshire, for now, could be won by Romney, or perhaps McCain. Let's say McCain takes it.
"Michigan, for now, could be Romney, could be Giuliani. Let's say Romney wins it.
"South Carolina . . . could be Huckabee, could be Romney, could be the site of Thompson's last stand. Let's say Thompson pounds his Southern themes and sneaks out with one or two percent.
"Under that scenario, nobody's the frontrunner by the time they get to Florida, which Rudy is still leading right now. Everybody could (and arguably should) have a win under their belts. In addition to each one of his rivals control[l]ing a faction of the pie, they'll probably have higher disapproval numbers, as they will have been the target of attacks for several weeks as Giuliani faded into the background."
Are we into low-balling season now? "You can accuse the Hillary Clinton campaign of a lot of things," says Roger Simon, "but overconfidence is not one of them. Not in Iowa. Not anymore. Orders have come from the top of the campaign here that nobody is to predict that Hillary Clinton will win Iowa.
"That may be part of the 'expectations' game that all campaigns play. Or it may be because the campaign no longer is really sure that Clinton will win. In interviews with top Clinton staffers, who did not wish to be quoted directly, I was told that Clinton could survive a second-place finish in Iowa and that the state was not do-or-die for her."
This has been so gradual that it's practically gone unnoticed, but the LAT's Doyle McManus notes that no one is running as a Bush Republican on foreign policy:
"Last week, after Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee criticized the Bush administration for an 'arrogant bunker mentality' toward the world, rival Mitt Romney rose to George W. Bush's defense. 'Mike Huckabee owes the president an apology,' Romney said.
"But Romney too has criticized the Bush administration, saying the occupation of Iraq was 'underplanned, understaffed [and] under-managed,' resulting in 'a mess.'
"Other GOP candidates have also found things to dislike in Bush's foreign policy: Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has dismissed the president's campaign for democracy in the Muslim world as naive and opposed his drive to establish a Palestinian state. Sen. John McCain of Arizona thinks Bush hasn't sent enough troops to Iraq and has been too easy on Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.
"One by one, the Republican candidates have been sketching out the lines of a post-Bush foreign policy. Their prescriptions are not identical, and they have been careful to avoid antagonizing Bush loyalists in the GOP base. But all four have edged away from the most ambitious part of Bush's worldview -- the idea that the main goal of U.S. foreign policy should be spreading democracy overseas."
I've looked at that Huckabee Xmas ad several times, and there's no way his filmmaker could have been unaware that the bookcase behind him reflected in a way that formed a cross. Peggy Noonan is creeped out by the ad:
"I wound up thinking this: That guy is using the cross so I'll like him. That doesn't tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I'm dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh . . .
"Ken Mehlman, the former Republican chairman, once bragged in my presence that in every ad he did he put in something wrong--something that went too far, something debatable. TV producers, ever hungry for new controversy, would play the commercial over and over as pundits on the panel deliberated over its meaning. This got the commercial played free all over the news.
"The cross is the reason you saw the commercial. The cross made it break through . . .
"Mr. Huckabee reminds me of two governors who became president, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Like Mr. Clinton, he is a natural, charming, bright and friendly. Yet one senses something unsavory there, something not so nice. Like Mr. Bush, his approach to politics seems, at bottom, highly emotional, marked by great spurts of feeling and mighty declarations as to what the Lord wants. The problem with this, and with Bushian compassionate conservatism, which seems to have an echo in Mr. Huckabee's Christianism, is that to the extent it is a philosophy, it is not a philosophy that allows debate. Because it comes down to 'This is what God wants.' This is not an opener of discussion but a squelcher of it. It doesn't expand the process, it frustrates it."
At The Fix, Chris Cillizza has a nice bit on who are the David Yepsens--the hot political writers--of the other 49 states?
There's been a spat at the NYT over a half-naked photo of a young model that ran in the glossy T magazine. Responding to criticism of the picture, which was kicked off by the paper's ombudsman, Times Magazine Editor Gerald Marzorati has his say, as Keith Kelly reports in the New York Post:
"Marzorati fired back in a memo to staffers earlier this week aimed at defending T and its editor, Jim Schachter.
" 'I will leave aside the purported central question of whether the photograph was appropriate to run or not, though as I said on Friday to Jim Schachter - who was terrific in calm, thoughtful defense of publishing the pictures - the standards wardens here would have been the very people 100 years ago to have been made apoplectic by a Renoir nude,' he wrote.
"Marzorati continued, 'I say purported because it seems clear from the public editor's way of getting into his column that he is offended not simply by the photo (about which people can disagree) but rather by T in general - that the magazine's elegant ad mixture of beauty, sensuality, luxury and God forbid, profitability, offends a moral code at the very heart of journalism and, especially, journalism as practiced at the New York Times. This kind of thinking would strike me as hilarious if it were not so sad, and to you, I fear hurtful,' he wrote."
I love it when editors fight.
By Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post, December 24, 2007


<< Home