BY DAN
KENNEDY
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
For information on Dan Kennedy's book, Little People: Learning to
See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes (Rodale, October 2003),
click
here.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Adam Nagourney screws Kerry
campaign. But why? This is the sidebar to the sidebar to the
sidebar. Adam Nagourney reports
in the New York Times today on how the capture of Saddam
Hussein might affect the Democratic presidential campaign. Toward the
end appear two highly unusual paragraphs:
The strains this created
were evident on Sunday. Mr. Kerry's press secretary, Stephanie
Cutter, sent an e-mail message to news organizations listing
remarks Dr. Dean had made over the past six months that she said
demonstrated that his opposition to the war was "politically
driven."
But Ms. Cutter, reflecting the
concern among the campaigns that they not be viewed as turning a
foreign policy victory to political advantage, put a note on the
top of the statement demanding that it be reported as
"background" and attributed only to a Democratic
campaign.
On the face of it, this seems like
Nagourney committed a gross breach of protocol. As best as I can
tell, neither the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, nor
the Washington Post exposed the Kerry campaign's role in
putting out the poison e-mail. (Nor did any of them actually use it.)
A search of Google
News shows that apparently
no one else did, either.
Did Nagourney have a justifiable
excuse to out Stephanie Cutter? Should she have known better than to
send out an e-mail demanding background treatment in advance, rather
than receiving assurances before she sent out the
e-mail?
Or did Nagourney just decide to
screw the Kerry campaign?
This demands further explanation. I
suggest that the Times' new public editor, Daniel Okrent,
address it in his first real column this coming Sunday.
UPDATE: Nagourney has
responded to this item.
The trial of the century.
No, not Michael Jackson's - Saddam Hussein's! In today's Boston
Globe, Vivienne Walt and Charlie Savage have a good
overview
of what is likely to be "the biggest human-rights case since
Nuremberg."
Along the same lines, the New
York Times' William Safire may be the only pundit so far to
depart
from the conventional wisdom - the C.W. being that Saddam showed
cowardice by surrendering without firing a shot. Safire
writes:
I think Saddam is still
Saddam - a meretricious, malevolent megalomaniac. He knows he is
going to die, either by death sentence or in jail at the hands of
a rape victim's family. Why did he not use his pistol to shoot it
out with his captors or to kill himself? Because he is looking
forward to the mother of all genocide trials, rivaling Nuremberg's
and topping those of Eichmann and Milosevic. There, in the global
spotlight, he can pose as the great Arab hero saving Islam from
the Bushes and the Jews.
Besides, those who are surprised
that Saddam didn't come out shooting obviously didn't see NBC's
Today show this morning.
In a surreal bit of play-acting,
Matt Lauer had Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (I think that was his
name; I couldn't read it with a "7 News Stormforce" logo taking up
the bottom quarter of the screen) lead him through a plywood model of
the "spider hole" that had been whipped together
overnight.
Surrounded by Christmas
decorations, Francona crawled in and showed how difficult it would
have been for Saddam - prone and looking up the barrels of a few
M-16s - even to pull his pistol.
posted at 9:53 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
