May 17, 2003
BUSH IMAGE MAKERS LEARNED IT ALL FROM CLINTON IMAGE MAKERS
Rita Kramer
An article on the front page of today’s New York Times, a publication with a lot of egg on its face these days, may be an attempt to distract readers from its own troubles. It’s headed “Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights.” New? I hardly think so, and the caption under a picture of the President reminded me of why I find the charge less than credible. It reads “The White House makes sure he’s always ready for his close-up,” the very phrase that occurred to me on an earlier occasion.
It was 1994 and Yale and I were covering the ceremonies commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Normandy landings. We were standing with a group of veterans and their wives on the bluff overlooking Omaha Beach, where they had come ashore on that historic morning at what cost only they could really know. All of them had visited the military cemetery where so many of their buddies lay, and all of them were deeply moved by the day and by the memories it brought to the surface.
As we stood there some of the Clinton advance crew, the public relations arm of the administration, came along and asked the veterans to move off. These were the men, some walking with canes, a couple in wheelchairs piloted by wives or children, many feeble, in whose honor we were supposed to be there. But there was another agenda for the White House staff.
The veterans never understood why they’d been moved away, but as accredited correspondents we were allowed—no, encouraged—to stay there, along with press photographers and reporters. And what we witnessed was a couple of White House aides surveying the beach, looking around to find something, then picking up some stones, studying them and finally choosing one which they placed with care at a strategic spot near the shoreline. Moments later President Clinton arrived, was escorted to the spot, and as the entourage stepped back out of camera view, he looked around at the scene and then down at his feet where he seemed to spy something—yes, a stone—which he picked up, looked at and then held in his grasp as he bit his lip and let a tear dampen his cheek. Deeply moved, you see.
There was some grumbling among the more assertive of the veterans who had been shunted away from the important action, but the pictures in the French press of Bill Clinton spontaneously picking up a stone on Omaha Beach and then staring out at the sea as he teared up and bit his lip were very effective.
Funny, though. The New York Times never described the scene or the staging by the keepers of the Clinton image. Probably just an oversight. They had their hands full exposing the vast right-wing conspiracy that was out to get him.
I'm not so sure that the New York Times was "so" obsessed with exposing the VRWC... IIRC, The Times was solidly behind Starr's investigation of Clinton, itself.
I think you're right to point out that W's marketing is an extension of what's been done before, just as the Times did with quotes from Deaver and others. I think the difference is the extent: the "new heights."
Posted by: Frank on May 17, 2003 03:42 PMEVEN MAUREEN DOWD WAS REPELLED BY THE CLINTON HISTRIONICS AT NORMANDY. AT ONE POINT HE MADE A CROSS ON THE GROUND WITH A FEW STONES AND, ON CUE, TEARED UP AGAIN. I WOULD BET HE WOULD EVEN SOB AT THE VIETNAME MEMORIAL. SO WOULD THE GHOSTS OF ALL THOSE WHO PERISHED IN THE SERVICE OF OUR NATION.
Posted by: RUTH KING on May 17, 2003 05:51 PMDear Yale:
I have be aware of your existence for some years now but only recently has Rita clued me in to your Horsefeathers site. Rita's story of the phoney Clinton Omaha beach story (the REAL story is the disrepect his handlers showed to the veterans and their families) was an event that needed to be documented so that future generations can come to know the 'real Clinton' whose legacy will be a cross between Harding/Buchanan and JFK's secret life. Hardly edifying. Personally I believe Democrats will come to resent his legacy but that remains to be seen. As a former big D democrat (I shall of course be a democrat and a small r republican until the day I die) I think I understand, with Rita and Diane Ravitch the roots of the decline and fall of the Old Democratic party which was mortally wounded in 1968 and has never really recovered despite Clinton's machinations.
Horsefeathers is lively and a worthy read of that there is no question. Carry on, Sir, in the cause of true honor....freedom, a paideia of education, civilization and truth.
May the God of Abraham bless you and yours for many a day!
Posted by: Ricardo Munro on May 17, 2003 07:32 PMThe soft, blubbery, feeling-ful Bill Clinton, so appealing to women, treated the Presidency as a great way to get laid. His tears at Normandy were designed to seduce the nearest French lookers. Since the press corps is largely composed of inadequate men, Clinton was sure to become their hero--the passive, self absorbed man who gets the girls who feel his pain! What a man! What a Presidency!
Posted by: Stephen on May 17, 2003 08:40 PMI do think it's important to differentiate Bush as President, from Clinton. Bush may be conscious of the PR element in his efforts, but he doesn't first consult a Dick Morris before determining policy. He has certain core beliefs, and won't deviate from them, even whe he risks political harm.
I was under the impression from that Esquire article (as well as the Op-ed piece written for the Philadelphia Enquirer) that the Bush administration was letting politics, rather than policy, direct the efforts. The guy recanted the Esquire article and said he was taken out of context, but there was still the piece he wrote for the philadelphia newspaper.
Posted by: Frank on May 18, 2003 12:32 PM