Newsweek‘s political reporters are good at coming up with details that seem to offer readers a fly-on-the-wall glimpse inside the campaigns. This week’s roundup of the basic state of the race, focusing on John Kerry’s recent decision to come out swinging on Iraq, leads with the story of how, before Kerry gave a speech this month criticizing “the mess in Iraq,” his advisers asked former general Wesley Clark how the attack would play with troops in the field. Clark assured the campaign that “the soldiers are debating it themselves on the ground,” and Kerry waded in.
Here’s another good Newsweek nugget: “As Kerry and Bush prep themselves for their TV debates…[Kerry’s] aides are mulling over how to exploit Kerry’s height advantage over Bush. “He’s going to hang there for the handshake with Bush,” said one senior campaign adviser. “Keep him long enough for everyone to get the shot.”
Time, meanwhile, examines [subscription required] the divide between “Red Truth” — in which President Bush displays bold leadership and Dan Rather tried to swing the race with phony documents — and “Blue Truth” — where Bush clearly shirked his National Guard duty and is “unfit to serve.”
Campaign Desk can attest that there’s more than an element of truth (neither red nor blue) to that portrait of division — just take a look at our email inbox. But Time‘s vision of a nation divided lets itself, and the rest of the mainstream media, off the hook too easily, portraying the press as hapless victims, caught between ideologically uncompromising extremes. As we’ve noted before, that helps justify the press’ tendency to automatically give both sides’ claims equal weight in every dispute, since all claims are viewed only as partisan tactics, rather than as arguments to be evaluated. In short, yes we’re divided, but that’s no excuse for reporters abdicating their responsibility, in each specific case, to help us figure out who’s right.
The Economist has a similarly weighty issue on its mind [subscription required]: how to fix American democracy. But its prescriptions for change are absurdly timid. The role of money in politics, says the magazine, “probably” increases the role of lobbyists (you think?). But it isn’t really a problem, because keeping elections in the private sector, rather than having the state provide funding, as many European countries do, is “a more liberal system, and closer to the principle of free speech.” As for replacing the electoral college with a system that ensures that the candidate who gets more votes wins, the magazine says that would just be “choosing one voting system over another.” (Hard to argue with that.)
The real solutions, according to The Economist: Use electronic voting systems only when they provide a paper backup, and get rid of gerry-mandered congressional districts (a recommendation that has nothing to do with the presidential elections, which are by far the most significant). Would that it were so easy.
The New Yorker‘s profile of Teresa Heinz Kerry thankfully goes beyond the “asset or Achilles’ heel” debate that’s been the leitmotif of Teresa-coverage so far this campaign season. It breaks some interesting new ground in exploring her childhood in Mozambique, and her marriage to the late Senator John Heinz. We also learn that, soon after meeting in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, John and Teresa “went to Mass at the cathedral and chatted in French.” The magazines’s Redbook-like aside: “When two Americans lapse into French, it is usually for the purpose of flirting.”
And finally, The Weekly Standard takes a look at the issue of whether Florida’s recent spate of hurricanes will affect the election. The short answer is ‘no’, though the magazine does note that, because of storm coverage, the state’s major media markets, including Orlando and Miami, did not broadcast President Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention. That doesn’t mean the weather has been a boon to the Democrats: Kerry has had to cancel some Florida events, and an aide agrees, “It’s been very, very difficult down there.”
–Zachary Roth
Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.