Newsweek’s seventh behind-the-scenes look at a presidential campaign has lots of small scoops and several rather odd judgments. This 47,000-word mini-book can be a hard slog at times, but it contains enough inside information to keep any committed political junkie turning the pages.
At its heart is a portrait of the most remarkably disciplined, detached, and self-aware presidential candidate America has ever seen: “Obama recalled that he often joked with his team, ‘This Barack Obama sounds like a great guy. Now I’m not sure that I am Barack Obama, right?’ He added, pointedly, ‘It wasn’t entirely a joke.’”
This was a man so disciplined that, instead of gaining the usual “campaign 10 or 15 pounds,” he lost weight on the campaign trail–imagine how much that infuriated the reporters who were covering him. (The Newsweek piece notes that Obama was never particularly popular with the trail reporters–it was their editors who really fell in love with him.)
When Bill Clinton began to self-destruct in South Carolina (and his popularity plummeted seventeen points in a week), “There was no high-fiving or obvious schadenfreude. As Axelrod saw him, Obama didn’t enjoy a good hate. That would be a waste of time and emotion, and Obama was, if nothing else, highly disciplined.”
“If nothing else”?? That’s one of the odd throwaway lines from Evan Thomas, who wrote this account on the basis of reporting by Newsweek veterans Peter Goldman and Eleanor Randolph and three younger contributors: Nick Summers, Katie Connolly, and Daniel Stone. The truth is—if nothing else—Obama is the most intelligent and the most politically gifted presidential candidate we have seen since John Kennedy.
Another instance of Obama’s extraordinary self-control: On June 3rd, when Obama had finally won enough delegates to guarantee his nomination, an aide said, “You just locked up the nomination—how about a beer?” Obama started to say yes, then changed his mind. “We won’t hit the ground until 3 in the morning, and I’ve got AIPAC first thing—I better not.”
Intelligence and maturity were the real secret weapons of this campaign. Everyone from Obama on down always behaved like a grown-up. “In my judgment, he showed more insight and maturity than Bill Clinton at the age of 60 in terms of understanding himself,” said Gregory Craig, a very early Obama supporter, who served as one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers during his impeachment trial.
On the other hand, the vicious wars among Hillary Clinton’s aides constantly spilled out into the press, and when “McCain didn’t like the words he had been given to read, his inner Dennis the Menace would emerge, and he would sabotage his own speech.”
Obama was a brilliant delegator, and he only stepped in to take direct control of his campaign at the moment of its greatest crisis—when Jeremiah Wright’s ravings suddenly dominated every news cycle for a whole weekend. Newsweek’s description of this episode is one of the strongest passages in the piece:
There was no great internal debate within Obama’s staff, in part because no one really knew what to do. But Obama did…For several months, he had been thinking about giving a broader speech on the subject of race, and now the moment had arrived. Obama had his own sense of timing and purpose. He knew that Wright’s remarks could stir racial fears that could become a cancer on the campaign unless some steps were taken to cut it out, and that he was the only one skillful enough to attempt the operation…His half-hour address was a tour de force, the sort of speech that only Barack Obama could give… He had the ability to empathize with both sides— to summon the fear and resentment felt by blacks for years of oppression, but also to talk about how whites (including his grandmother) could fear young black men on the street, and how whites might resent racial preferences for blacks in jobs and schools. He ended with a moving scene, a story of reconciliation between an older black man and a young white woman. When he walked backstage at the Constitution museum, he found everyone in tears—his wife, his friends and his hardened campaign aides. Only Obama seemed cool and detached. The speech was ‘solid,’ he said, as his entourage, tough guys like Axelrod and former deputy attorney general Eric Holder, choked up.
But then comes another one of Thomas’s odd judgements:
Nonetheless, a close reading of the speech suggests more than a hint of personal grandiosity. Obama was giving the voters a choice: they could stay ‘stuck’ in a ‘racial stalemate.’ Or they could get beyond it—by, well, voting for him. ‘We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day, and talk about them from now until the election … We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will flock to John McCain … We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And then nothing will change.’
That passage had nothing to do with personal grandiosity: it was actually just pure political genius.
As Hendrik Hertzberg explains in this week’s New Yorker, “what made that speech special, what enabled it to save his candidacy, was its analytic power. It was not defensive. It did not overcompensate. In its combination of objectivity and empathy, it persuaded Americans of all colors that he understood them. In return, they have voted to make him their President.”
Although Thomas isn’t particularly good at conveying the historic sweep of Obama’s achievement, he does include plenty of fascinating details about the nuts and bolts that distinguished this campaign from preceding Democratic efforts:
- 1
- 2
This is "media criticism"???? It reads like an advertisement for Obama about an advertisement for Obama. For ex., the author mentions that apparently editors were quite taken by Obama but doesn't critique this revelation for it's appropriateness when coming from a supposedly objective media. Please, offer us more serious media criticism in the future that is not so one-sided.
Posted by anon on Mon 10 Nov 2008 at 12:49 PM
Racism in America--conscious and otherwise--must be over because the possible candidate for Secretary of Education Joel I. Klein has created an incomprehensible mess of a racial imbalance in New York "elite" schools, a story that The New York Times continues to cover in detail but cannot understand.
Joel I. Klein is an "elite" product of Columbia and Harvard, but he obviously cannot grasp the difference between factitious Pearson tests, or Kaplan trash, and genuine learning. How is is possible that the schools in New York could be in such a clearly retrograde and racist mess without a single reporter at Newsweek or CBS being able to figure it out at all?
I would be willing to write an op/ed for cjr.org on the pathologies of New York English. How large is the study guide/SAT--ETS/College Board/Kaplan business in the city? What are the opportunity costs? How is it possible that the New York media could not grasp the implications of the ETS Europe UK marking collapse, what it meant for this wonderful American city, with the world's two best newspapers, New York Times and Wall Street Journal? How is it possible that you would have to read The Australian to find an acceptable Higher Education section in a newspaper, instead of in one of those two papers?
Is there one reporter in America--John Barry is certainly not that reporter--who can see how a real grammar or dictionary is superior to an SAT manual? Is there one reporter who can grasp that tests such as the Pearson "elite schools racial separation instrument" in New York and the SAT could not possibly be of any value because any good they could possibly do would be far more than canceled out by the opportunity costs?
For example, if students were to study for years the only two great teaching grammars of English, the Murdoch-owned COBUILD Intermediate English and English grammars, they would be able to integrate their knowledge of patterns such as counterfactual conditions with the wealth of instances in Dickens's "Great Expectations."
In journalism schools in New York, do we have official books such as the COBUILD grammars, Longman Advanced American Dictionary, and Longman Language Activator, with a determined effort to crack into such texts as "Terror and Consent," or a pathetic reliance on such trash as TOEFL?
Do we have any targets in America? Do we have graduated curricula? In his slight New York Times review of "Terror and Consent," Niall Ferguson effectively ignored the pervasive role of counterfactual reasoning in Bobbitt's book, even though (under Parmenides' Fallacy) we will find Bobbitt speculating on how matters would have been different today if we had not invaded Iraq, as opposed to how history might have turned out for us now in other circumstances.
In a graduated curriculum to teach counterfactual logic, you start with COBUILD grammars, work intensively on "Great Expectations," and aim towards "Terror and Consent." You end up with skills that you elicit formally on exams. How would history have been different today if George Bush had been able to read?
The American study guide tradition locks into various programmed intellectual collapses. If we compare the intelligence collapse culminating in 9/11, the Wall Street financial disorders, and the involution in teaching and testing represented by ETS, we note that there is nobody home to perform the analysis of symptoms. Just as reporters often have slovenly English, Economics departments rely on TOEFL and the GRE to sort admissions candidates.
The question I have for Niall Ferguson about his review of Philip Bobbitt's remarkable "Terror and Consent" is, did you read the book? Did any reporters such as John Barry ask you if you had done so? The evidence of your review is that you skimmed it. If you had read it in depth, you would have commented on some of its most important recommendations, such as intelligence schools. You would have observed the importance Bobbitt attributed to Parmenides' Fallacy in political reasoning.
CJR should abandon its language corner, if it exists--it seems a figment of someone's imagination-- and The New York Times should ask William Safire to step down. "On Language" is trivial junk. Language Log should close. American commentary on language is just too atrocious and mindless. If you can't think about English, you should not be creating entangled messes in the New York school system or thinking perhaps of being Secretary of Education so as to create an appalling mess on a national scale.
Is there a psychoanalytic institute in New York that could study the nature of involuted systems? Why do we have such a huge factitious economy? Why is Newsweek in such a state of sleep? Maybe the answer is in "After Apple-Picking."
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 10 Nov 2008 at 04:36 PM
Charles Kaiser, I am pleased that you liked the "60 Minutes" sit down. Perhaps you could ask around at The Journalism School at Columbia University for a consensus about the material on "60 Minutes" in "The Brotherhoods," by Guy Lawson and William Oldham, a powerful book, for certain. It seems curious to me that what the authors said about the "newsmagazine on the air" has not been fully resolved, as far as I am aware. What is in "The Brotherhoods" about "60 Minutes" would be an excellent case study for journalism schools. Has it been done, to your knowledge?
My first question is about pp. 433, 471. Who was the "60 Minutes" junior producer Oldham called, and have more details emerged as to why Casso's description of killing Hydell was excluded from his interview with "60 Minutes"?
Have the circumstances pp. 563-64 become clearer on how "60 Minutes" would run footage of the press conference after the arrest of Caracappa and Eppolito, including the fact that reporter Lesley Stahl showed up at Tommy Dades's house?
What is the "60 Minutes" analysis now of pp. 569-71 on the Ed Bradley review of the case and his interview with Dades?
What is your assessment of the "60 Minutes" interview with Stephen Caracappa depicted in "The Brotherhoods," pp. 601-05? Of Oldham's statement that "Ed Bradley wasn't going to ask Caracappa any of the hard questions"? How could Bradley have inserted the name "Caracappa" into the Casso interview, in response to "Cappa--" (602)? Should Bradley have known about and asked about the Caracappa disguise of the name Nicky Guido in a cluster of names (603)?
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 10 Nov 2008 at 06:07 PM