Campaign Desk
Wherefore “Sticks” a Candidate’s “Gaffe?”
Do tell, Joe Scarborough
By Liz Cox Barrett Wed 26 Mar 2008 04:59 PMHere is Joe Scarborough on MSNBC this morning, referring to TuzlaGate (Hillary Clinton having more than once exaggerated the danger and drama of a 1996 trip to Tuzla, Bosnia):
…[T]his Bosnia story smacks of gotcha politics. If [Hillary Clinton] had the reputation of being an exaggerator-in-chief, like Al Gore, it would matter. If she had said I invented the Internet, it sticks. One of these gaffes sticks when it compounds an existing problem…
Nope. This doesn’t matter at all. Pay no attention to the fact that we’re dissecting it here on MSNBC on at least an hourly basis, with clips (look, it’s Sinbad!). That’s not how these things “stick.”
And then, when Scarborough et al revisited the Scandal That Doesn’t Matter—like clockwork—an hour later this morning, Scarborough continued:
What I said last hour, if she, like Al Gore, had the propensity to exaggerate, if that was the knock in the press, something like this would be a problem. It’s just not a propensity…
Nah, this thing I’m talking about again—the umpteenth of who knows how many times it will be referenced on MSNBC this week—doesn’t matter at all. See, a candidate saying something that isn’t true is only a “problem” when we in the media can conveniently jam that untruth into an existing narrative that we have established for the candidate and then point, satisfied-like, to the candidate’s “propensity” to stretch the truth.
What about when a candidate hasn’t said something that isn’t true but rather the media has said something that isn’t true about what a candidate said (like, say, about the Internet or something)? Might that sometimes stick?
Ask Al Gore.
Nine years later and it’s still sticking.
CJR
Subscribe Today
Fichetail![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 1 Apr 2008 05:43 AMI don't this analysis runs very deep at all. First of all, the Morning Joe always repeats everything one hour into it--for the viewers joining at that time.
Second, Scarborough spent only one day on that story, a story that others contend is so telling on Hillary Clinton that it is responsible for her sharp subsequent decline in the polls.
Third, the big story on Scarborough is his sudden switch from anti-Clinton to extreme Clinton affiliation ("She's my girlfriend.") starting the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries. While this might be ascribed to the launching of the Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" strategy 5 days before, it is odd that a national commentator would fall into line in such lockstep with a radio conservative. Moreover, Scarborough never mentions the Chaos strategy or urges anyone to vote for her on the grounds that it will create difficulties in the Democratic Party.
It is more like the Clinton camp got him in line. Guessing why, starts with a look into Joe's public background. We might find there evidence of something that could be used as leverage. Have you done that? I promise to if you will. It's important to understand this sudden switch from extremely vocal criticism to submissive loyalty. I think this is worth the journalistic effort, even if you are in the Cliton camp yourself.