In tomorrow's NY Times, David Halbfinger pulls out all the stops in summing up the media's attempts to create a sense of crisis around the Kerry campaign:
Still, as Mr. Kerry disappeared to regroup on the slopes of Sun Valley this weekend, he left Democrats recoiling at the disparity between his campaign in the works and the White House, which has devoted six months to preparing for this moment.The headline,
Some Democrats Say Kerry Must Get Back on the Trail, seems to suggest that Kerry himself should cut his vacation, which ends Tuesday, short. However, not a single quote from any Democrat says Kerry needs to cut short his vacation. In fact, just a few days ago the C.W. was that Kerry was notable for the ferocity of his own attacks on the President and the rapidity for which he was hitting back.
Let's review shall we. Here is ABC News' The Note last Tuesday:
But looking at the calendar, it is perfectly likely that the President will not be able to change the direction of his political vector until he gives his acceptance speech in the World's Most Famous Arena at the Republican National Convention in September.
It is this current trajectory of motion that gives Democrats a sense of hope and opportunity and Republicans a bit of heartburn.
Because of the direction and speed of the vectors, Kerry now has the best of both worlds: the aura of the meta-frontrunner, plus the favorable press coverage of the underdog. (Remember: The Note chronicles what IS, not necessarily what ought to be . . . )Here they are again two days later:
When Bush vs. Kerry is fought out on national security terrain (as it was yesterday and as it will be today), four things seem to happen:
1. The election is framed as "steady" vs. "risky change" — and we know who wins that, at least for now.
2. Kerry strains, with the BC04RNC boot on his neck and the conservative echo chamber swarming like wasps all over his face, to clear the national security bar (essential if he is to have a chance to win).
3. In straining to clear the national security bar, Kerry tends to say things that sound like a sort of combination of the worst tendencies of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Howard Dean.
Yesterday's (latest) example, in responding to the Bush ad on the $87 billion supplemental appropriation ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.") is sure to be exploited in this news cycle by the Bush campaign.
Besides turning off the press corps and the rest of the Gang of 500, these types of statements keep Kerry from clearing another bar he must clear to win: the Do-Americans-Want-This-Guy-In-Their-Living-Rooms-For-Four-Years? bar.Wow...now that is a quick turnaround. Does The Note suffer from amnesia? Even better, the next day (Thursday) they made a list of 14 mistakes the Kerry campaign has made in the past week. "1. The 'Crooks,' 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion,' and 'more leaders' quotes, and the handling of their aftermath. It descends from there. The problem is, the 'Crooks,' '$87 billion,' and 'more leaders' quotes happened the previous week, several days before they proclaimed "Kerry now has the best of both worlds."
So, what is going on here? Quite clearly the media, influenced by a deluge of attacks from the GOP, is trying to change the storyline from Kerry the winner to Kerry in turmoil prompting Howard Kurtz to write in his column on Friday:
The press is unbelievably fickle.
For the last couple of months, the story line was that John Kerry could do no wrong (which followed the previous story line that he could do no right). He was winning primaries, showcasing his band of brothers and shouting "Bring it on!" every Tuesday night. What's more, he was beating the president in the polls.
All of which spawned some "Could Bush Lose?" pieces by various prognosticators.
Now Kerry has suffered through one bad week, Bush has dropped a couple of attack ads, a New York Times poll has the prez up by 3 points and the CW is coalescing around the following question:
What's wrong with the Kerry campaign?Thank god Bob Shrum came to the rescue in today's NY Times and provided a little clarity on all this:
"The notion that you have a one-sided definition that takes hold five months before an election is ridiculous," said Bob Shrum, a senior advisor to Mr. Kerry. "I don't think the Bush campaign's caricatures are going to stand up to the reality. Voters are smarter than that."http://toughenough04.blogspot.com/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(12 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
