Clinton goes to Jay Leno's show to defuse issue of truthfulness

As we reported earlier this week, Clinton was attacked on the key issue of her truthfulness because of misleading statements made during a visit at George Washington University. Talking about a trip to Bosnia in 1996, Hillary had said that her plane landed "under sniper fire." Quite embarrassing, when footage of the event broadcasted by the networks revealed that there was no fire, and that she was welcomed by a red carpet and a young girl presenting her flowers. Satirical videos promptly appeared on You Tube (see this, for example).

The Senator from New York's skilled communication staff chose to cut short clumsy explanations, and sent her to Jay Leno's show, where she opened with a well-crafted one-liner: "I was worried I wasn't going to [arrive on time], I was pinned down by sniper fire." Leno's interruption, "Really!" made the audience laugh, she "admitted" her exaggerations, proved to be capable of self-irony and now the Clinton's campaign hopes the issue will fade. The (very serious) issues of the role of late-night shows in the American political process were first discussed in an excellent Salon article by Michael Scherer on Stephen Colbert two years ago, and now by  Russell L. Peterson's new book "Strange Bedfellows: How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democracy Into a Joke," below.

Arthur Miller, Where Are You When We Need You?

Many scholars of American political campaigns remember how the mainstream press savaged Al Gore in his debates of October 2000 with George W. Bush, because of his "pedantic" attitude. Pundits took issue with his puzzled and exasperated look listening to the nonsense mumbled by his opponent: "Lack of respect," "pretentiousness," "arrogance" were the judgments of his critics. No columnist seemed interested in evaluating Bush's arguments, and in in saying whether Gore's detailed observations were correct or not. The late Arthur Miller, in his excellent I presidenti americani e l'arte di recitare (1) remarked that newspapermen became movie critics: they were interested only in the performance of the two "actors" on stage, and perfectly indifferent to the issues discussed. Who was more briliant? Who did find the best one-liner? That one was the "winner," and therefore should become President of the United States.
Apparently, not much has changed since 2000: last Tuesday there was a tense debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the last one before March 4th critical primaries in Texas and in Ohio. What was the focus of New York Times's ADAM NAGOURNEY in his piece? Writing about Hillary Clinton, he observed: "in contrast to other debates where she mixed a warm smile with a sharp attack — she was stern and tense through most of the evening, speaking in an almost fatigued monotone as she recounted her criticisms of Mr. Obama, some of them new but many of them familiar. She often sat staring unsmiling at Mr. Obama and at Tim Russert of NBC News."
Too bad, "she was stern and tense through most of the evening" and therefore is not qualified to be President of the USA. She was "speaking in an almost fatigued monotone" and this is not acceptable. She "sat staring unsmiling" and therefore her political proposals about health care, taxes or foreign policy passed away. Well, if this is the tone and substance of the campaign, as seen by the New York Times, there isn't much hope for American democracy in 2008.

(1)We couldn't find an English edition for this text, and we'll be grateful to the reader who will point out to one.