In the Headlines: William J. Clinton Edges Out
G.W.B.
Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 19, 2001; Page C01 One month into his tenure, President Bush still manages to get himself on
television and in the papers. But the degree to which a previous White House
occupant is stealing the media spotlight is nothing short of remarkable. From Monday through Thursday -- as the president was staging events on
military reform -- the network evening newscasts aired 18 pieces on Bill Clinton
(seven of them the lead story) and only 14 about Bush. From Monday through
Friday, the New York Times ran four front-page Clinton stories and two on Bush;
The Washington Post, four apiece. Bush advisers see a silver lining. "There's some heartburn about the fact the
message is getting stepped on," says Mark McKinnon, Bush's campaign media
strategist. "But it's not getting stepped on with a good message [about
Clinton]; it's getting stepped on with a bad message. For voters it's created
such a stark contrast in appearances that it's enhanced their perception of the
Bush administration." But as former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart observes, "It's hard to govern
from Page A-17. The presidency is about getting the country engaged." Or, as Jay Leno cracks, "Is it me, or is Clinton in the papers more now than
when he was president?" (Clinton still dominates in late-night jokes as
well.) From Jan. 20 through Feb. 15, says the Center for Media and Public Affairs,
the ABC, CBS and NBC nightly newscasts have done 135 stories on Bush and 62 on
Clinton -- an eye-popping statistic considering that most former presidents
quickly vanish from the headlines. ("NBC Nightly News" aired the most Clinton
stories, 34, to 32 for Bush.) "No news is good news for George Bush," says the center's Robert Lichter. "In
every new administration, someone gets clobbered by the media. Usually it's the
incoming president. This time it's the ex-president." Some of the early Clinton controversies -- over his acceptance of gifts and
rental of pricey New York office space -- have faded, and the initial reports of
vandalism by departing White House aides are now seen as overblown. But
Clinton's pardon of fugitive Marc Rich has mushroomed into a full-blown,
international-intrigue, much-investigated, cable-ready scandal. But as awful as the pardon looks -- and even Democrats have been denouncing
their former leader -- it's more absorbing for journalists than the latest
maneuvering over Bush's tax-cut plan. For the media, scandal trumps boring
Washington substance. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says his boss isn't worried about being
overshadowed. "I assure you the president does not have any such frustration,"
Fleischer told reporters. "He's just looking forward and not looking
backward." Another adviser says of the Clinton avalanche: "I don't think any of us
inside the Bush administration would be out wishing for this." But, this person
says, "George W. Bush has demonstrated great discipline when it comes to the
former president, which is not to rassle with that tar baby. We stick to our
business." But Lockhart says the president "is running a pretty cynical good cop/bad cop
campaign. The Republican apparatus has been out there pushing these stories, and
Bush says we shouldn't be focusing so much on Clinton." Lockhart also insists that the media are pumping up some of the Clinton
controversies. "We've seen a real deterioration in the press's ability to
separate a real news story from the chatter that starts on the Internet or in
conservative circles," he says. "There's probably a little bit of withdrawal
from covering Bill Clinton. It's ridiculous." Democratic strategist Mark Mellman also sees Bush losing out: "There's only
so much news hole for politics. If Bill Clinton's taking it up, that means
George Bush isn't." Despite the Democratic spin, the media battering of Clinton has given the
party a black eye. Even Clinton's Commerce secretary, William Daley, tells the
New York Times that Clinton's exit has been "devastating." The Newsweek and Time
covers out today are on Clinton. (Time's headline: "The Incredible Shrinking
Ex-President"). And the conservative press is having a grand old time, with the
Weekly Standard's new cover taunting: "Why Move On? This is too much fun" Clinton is "still standing onstage with a hook, refusing to yield," McKinnon
says. "He'll have to be dragged off kicking and screaming." Of course, the
Clinton coverage can't continue for four more years. Can it? Footnote: Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, is crying foul over those
ever-present TV pictures of Rich's wealthy ex-wife, Denise, giving Clinton a
saxophone at a glittery event, with Larry King in the background. Turns out it's
from a charity ball for cancer research last November. "We feel the footage is
misleading and suggests Denise was at a Democratic fundraiser," says Peter
Mirijanian, Quinn's spokesman. "People assume that was an event where she
contributed to the president." New Republic columnist Andrew Sullivan is becoming a real thorn in the side
of . . . the New Republic. The British writer's latest whack at the magazine he once edited surfaced on
his Web site, andrewsullivan.com: "My own magazine, the New Republic,
which did an enormous amount to support New Democrat ideas in the 1980s and
1990s, has now sadly all but surrendered to the left of the party and is
increasingly indistinguishable in policy and politics from the [liberal]
American Prospect." Sullivan says from London: "The good thing about the New Republic is it's
always arguing with itself. I hope they don't interpret this the wrong way.
They're used to me by now." The interview was interrupted when Sullivan got a call from Editor Peter
Beinart. Sullivan "probably regrets doing it this particular way because he
wasn't really engaging in a lot of detail on the substance of the issue,"
Beinart says afterward. While "there's no question I'm to Andrew's left," he
says, the magazine's New Democrat philosophy has evolved because "a lot of the
liberal sacred cows it was among the first to try to slay in the '80s are dead
and buried." This isn't the first time Sullivan has kicked up sand in his own sandbox.
Last month he took on New Republic writer Jonathan Cohn for ostensibly arguing
that "the American people want the left-liberal agenda Gore offered them."
Sullivan mercilessly battered Al Gore as a fervent left-winger -- the same Al
Gore who's a longtime pal of New Republic owner Marty Peretz. Peretz chided his star columnist in December, scoffing at Sullivan's New
Republic piece during the Florida recount, which argued that it didn't matter
much whether Gore or Bush won the White House. Peretz contrasted this relaxed
rhetoric with Sullivan's "fevered" and "absurd" analysis in the Times of London
that "Gore is a danger to the country and to the Constitution." So is Sullivan chastened? Will he cease and desist? Nah. "I tend to say what
I think before I think about what the consequences will be," he says. "Marty
wrote this whole piece saying I was basically out of my mind, and he may well be
right." The Bloomsburg, Pa., Press Enterprise says it fired reporter Steven Helmer
for making up at least one name and a quote for a story. An editor confronted
Helmer after a search of tax records in a nearby town failed to find the
residents he had quoted, and the reporter admitted making up one or two names in
a previous story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a Daily Pep Talk? List Info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailypeptalk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wholelottalinx brings you the best of current events from the web daily complete with URL reference! List Info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wholelottalinx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Parents! Take a load off at the ParentCafe List Info: URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParentCafe ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Chat Addresses: ICQ: 103814927 Y! Messenger: Kazzmir MS Messenger: Kazzmir AOL Messenger: xmulvax |