HOWARD KURTZ: "I don't remember anything like all this live coverage when Bush 41 opened his library, do you?"
Clintonista Central
Friday, Nov 19, 2004; 7:05 AM
If you were watching cable yesterday, you'd have thought that the capital had been moved to Little Rock.
The media can't resist a gathering of presidents, and never could resist a story line involving Bill Clinton (remember his hospital-bed advice to John Kerry?). Especially when his wife (who's also making the TV rounds, including Larry King and Greta Van Susteren) may run for his old job.
But I don't remember anything like all this live coverage when Bush 41 opened his library, do you? And the ex-prez got an hour with Peter Jennings on "PrimeTime" last night.
(Fox seemed to be spending more time talking about impeachment and Clinton's failure to get Osama, at least when I was clicking over.)
Clinton 42 is an endlessly fascinating character. The publication of his book, and his first interview with Dan Rather, was a huge publishing event. The impeachment section of his library gives the press a chance to talk about Monica again. And the Democrats' second straight loss since Clinton left the White House adds an element of urgency to the debate over what he had that Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry didn't. Was it his persuasive personality, or a more centrist brand of politics that didn't turn off all red-staters on the cultural front?
There was a funny moment when James Carville said the event was bringing back a lot of memories--and, after this month's election, memories is all the Democrats have right now.
The ceremonies also provided the legacy-minded Clinton with a chance to burnish his reputation by reminding people what they liked about the peace-and-prosperity '90s. And Clinton, who maintained his high approval ratings through the depths of impeachment, has gotten his numbers back up after the pardons scandal that marred his exit from the Beltway.
As for the current POTUS, the Clinton dedication gave him a chance to appear generous and bipartisan, striking a nice note for the 48 percent who went for Kerry. Bush's dad, who lost his job to Clinton, was especially gracious.
The Note sounds pumped: "Which is more objectively exciting -- seeing Streisand, Bono, Robin Williams, John Podesta, and Mike McCurry by the same bank of elevators in the Peabody or listening to a sweet conversation with former DNC Party Chair David Wilhelm in which the joshing Notion of his making another bid for the post sounded less and less implausible as the talk went on?"
The Los Angeles Times sets the scene:
"Among the 100 members of Congress in the audience was Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, just two weeks removed from the presidential race. The crowd, which had been bullied into silence by the weather, erupted in an enormous cheer when Kerry's arrival was shown on large video screens hanging above the bleachers from cranes.
"Here, too, was former Vice President Al Gore, who, some still argue, deserved to take over the White House in 2000.Seated nearby were conservatives such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and Karl Rove, the White House advisor who engineered Bush's reelection drive this fall.
"On stage, even after a divisive political season, the current and former presidents set aside their partisan differences, a reminder that the institution of the presidency will always trump the person who holds the office. Clinton said he often joked during the recent campaign, wondering whether he was the only person left in America who liked both President Bush and Kerry, men who had competing visions for the country."
There he goes--triangulating again!
The New York Times looks down the road:
"He saved his strongest endorsement for his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has made clear that she will run for a second term as a senator from New York in 2006 but is also widely believed to be seeking the presidency in 2008. 'She has the best combination of mind and heart, conviction and compassion, I've ever encountered,' he said."
The New York Post waits until the fifth paragraph to report:
"There was no mention of the sex scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment, and Monicagate is given scant attention in the library exhibits."
Slate's Dana Stevens critiques one anchor's coverage:
"The best part of the opening ceremony at the Clinton Presidential Library was watching MSNBC's Chris Matthews kill time. I've finally figured out the secret of Matthews' weirdly hypnotic charm: He's more comfortable free-associating on TV than most people are on their analyst's couch, so the duller the event he's covering, the further out he gets.
"As the guests arrived to take their seats in the icy rain, Matthews battled his worst enemy -- silence -- with some of his usual libidinally charged ramblings: 'Boy, that Tipper Gore is a good-looking woman. I'm sorry, I'd like to offer that commentary.' During the Star Spangled Banner,' Matthews mused aloud about the inherent unsingability of our national anthem -- a point everyone secretly agrees on, but how many news anchors would say it on the air? Best of all, though, were his memories of bygone meetings of a Washington social club for presidential speechwriters, 'back in the days when people used to drink.'"
I say he should have sung the anthem.
Andrew Sullivan wants Condi to get her due:
"I guess I should say that Condi Rice's race and gender are not the most important things about her career and abilities. But I'm still amazed at how little credit this president gets for promoting a black woman to such a position, and, more importantly, by his obvious respect and admiration for her. His management style is clearly post-racial, and his comfort with female peers is impressive. You know, Bill Clinton was celebrated for his progressiveness, and ease with African-Americans. But it's inconceivable that he would have given so much power and authority to a black female peer."
On what bit of mind-reading does Andrew base this declaration?
"Why does Bush get no respect on this score? I guess it reveals that much of the left's diversity mania is about the upholding of a certain political ideology, rather than ethnic or gender variety itself. Depressing."
When it comes to AG, says the New Republic's Marisa Katz, liberals should be careful what they wish for:
"Senate Democrats seem so relieved to be rid of Ashcroft that they have blinded themselves to the likelihood that Gonzales could be--well, worse. For one thing, there is reason to believe he will be just as conservative as Ashcroft. For another, his preference for keeping a low profile could very well make him more damaging to the justice system. . . .
"More relevant is Gonzales's work in the White House, where he showed himself to be supremely loyal to Bush and to the conservative cause. Gonzales filled his office with former Scalia and Thomas clerks. He recommended the most conservative federal judgeship nominees of any recent administration. And he has been a willing accomplice in the administration's violation of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. If, indeed, as some Republicans close to the White House suggest, Gonzales's attorney-general stint is intended to shore up his conservative credentials in advance of his nomination to the Supreme Court, this rightward tilt would likely become even more pronounced at Justice.
"But he would probably be pretty quiet about it. Unlike Ashcroft, who approached the job like a politician--making himself a public spokesman for the war on terrorism and touring the country last year in defense of the Patriot Act--Gonzales usually likes to lay low. His office went to great lengths these past four years to protect the White House from scrutiny. Most notably, he refused a request from the [General Accounting Office] to disclose who met with Vice President Cheney to offer input on the administration's energy policy. (By coincidence, Gonzales's old Houston law firm represented Enron.) He also drafted an executive order giving the president unprecedented power to withhold the records of past presidents and their aides. . . .
"To be sure, Ashcroft's Justice Department wasn't big on transparency or accountability. But at least Ashcroft's confrontational, in-your-face style provided some sense of what he was up to. Gonzales would likely be much harder to keep tabs on.
"That's particularly dangerous in light of what he has already done, and could continue to do, to undermine our justice system. Gonzales was a chief architect of Bush's executive order establishing the disastrous Guantanamo Bay military commissions--on hold since last week when a federal judge ruled that they don't meet United States standards of justice. He helped craft legal arguments that "enemy combatants," as designated by the president, could be held without the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court determined that claim unconstitutional earlier this year. And, of course, there's that pesky memo to the president in which Gonzales cast aside the Geneva Conventions as 'obsolete' and 'quaint'--and set the stage for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
Slate's Jack Shafer continues his crusade against "anonymice":
"Perhaps New York Times reporters David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman didn't get the interoffice memo Times Assistant Managing Editor Allan M. Siegal e-mailed last week. Siegal's memo announces the formation of an in-house committee charged with finding ways to increase the newspaper's credibility. 'We'd like to believe we have reduced our dependence on anonymous sources,' Siegal writes in his memo and asks the newsroom if more blind sources can be squeezed out of the paper.
"The two reporters reverse Siegal's progress by packing at least 22 anonymice into their 1,400-word, Page One story, 'Cabinet Choices Seen as Move for More Harmony and Control.' This works out to one anonymous or vaguely attributed thought, sentiment, feeling, or a quotation every 63.6 words (as many words contained in this paragraph!). The scampering anonymice appear in this order:
" -- 'current and former administration officials'
" -- 'One senior official'
" -- 'A close associate of Mr. Powell'
" -- 'friends [of Condoleezza Rice]'
" -- 'a national security official who just left the administration'
" -- 'people who know [the president's] mind'
" -- 'one official who no longer works in the White House but deals with it often'
" -- 'Some'
" -- 'some officials'
" -- 'one administration official'
" -- 'officials who have heard accounts of the case Mr. Bush made to Ms. Rice'
" -- 'a former official who is close to Ms. Rice and sat in on many of the White House situation room meeting where policy conflicts arose'
" -- 'several officials'
" -- 'an envoy who attended one of the [post-election] meetings'
" -- 'Other envoys'
" -- 'Administration officials'
" -- 'Several officials'
" -- 'associates [of Ms. Rice]'
" -- 'Ms. Rice's associates'
" -- 'Some'
" -- 'other officials'
" -- 'State Department officials'
"Sanger and Weisman spoil their anonymous streak by quoting two officials by name toward the end of the story: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, currently on an Ecuador field trip, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, speaking to CNN. For shame!"
In fairness to the Times, try getting Scott McClellan or anyone at Foggy Bottom to say anything remotely candid about the situation on the record.
The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan wonders if there's a subtext to the Condi coverage:
"She is a good person; she has experience and accomplishments; she is stable, hardworking and sophisticated. She is also--this is breathtaking, still--a young black woman raised to the position first held by Thomas Jefferson. It is considered corny to point this out. But corny's not all bad. Look at it this way. In every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world very soon, non-Americans will walk in to see two things: a picture of the American president and next to it a picture of the young black woman who is this nation's secretary of state. They will notice this, and consciously or not they will think: This truly must be some kind of country.
"Is there a drawback to her appointment? There must be. There is a drawback to everything. The Bush cabinet is getting very Bushian. That sends a clear message. But you don't always want to send a clear message. Sometimes you want to confuse things. Sometimes you want to give an unclear message to the world so that it will sit down and scratch its head, in silence. When Colin Powell was secretary of state, foreign leaders didn't know exactly where he stood, either in terms of policy or internally, in his place in the Bush hierarchy. It confused them. This was so wonderful. They confided all sorts of things to him because they didn't know what he'd respond to or how or what he'd bring home and wouldn't. It's good when foreign leaders confide. It can be good when they don't know...
"The criticism of Ms. Rice has been fascinating. Her critics need to sit down and have a Coke, as Bob Dole said. A friend said to me yesterday, 'She is boring.' I thought, really? You can't be boring enough; we've had quite enough excitement.
"Another person said, 'She's not very feminine.' My first thought was: Neither was Colin."
Noonan also addresses whether the nation's chief diplomat should give off "sparks of sexuality."
Best hidden nugget in a Washington Post story, about the naming of Margaret Spellings as education secretary:
"During the Roosevelt Room nomination ceremony yesterday, Rove recalled that he had once asked Spellings out on a date in the early 1980s when they were both single but she had turned him down "brutally."
'It has taken my ego decades to recover,' he joked." |
