The big campaign news of the week turned out to be not the debates, but the fact that the New York Times's Rick Berke finally noticed Al Gore's exaggeration problem. Of course, it was hard not to notice after Gore's false and gratuitous boast that, like Bush, he had toured Texas disaster areas with the director of FEMA in June 1998. Still, Berke deserves credit. It's not his fault the editors didn't run his Gore piece on the front page, as they did Berke's infamous "Rats" story about supposed subliminal messages in a Bush campaign ad. Though running on page 24, Berke's dispatch last Friday, "Tendency to Embellish Fact Snags Gore," marks the first concession by the Times that Gore's baloney is newsworthy in itself, and not simply an example of something nasty Republican operatives want to harangue the press corps about.
Indeed, Berke found that Democrats are troubled by Gore's serial boasting. And he quoted one Chris Wetzel, a professor of psychology at Rhodes College in Memphis, offering this backhanded defense of the vice president: "'Why would someone say something like this when it can be so blatantly discovered?' asked Mr. Wetzel, who has taught a research course called Detecting Impostors and Con Artists. 'I think it's like the false memory syndrome when people end up believing that they were abducted by aliens.'"
Berke noted that Gore himself in an interview several weeks ago blamed the press for his problem, complaining that reporters used to not have "a hair trigger on." That's for sure. Maybe he would have broken the habit sooner, if reporters hadn't given him such an easy ride. Their willingness to pooh-pooh his exaggerations is as longstanding as his tendency to boast, as can be gleaned from the following memo, one of two warnings to Gore from his staff in the late 1980s which Matt Drudge posted on his website last Friday.
* * *
TO: Al
FROM: Mike [Mike Kopp, the campaign's deputy press secretary]
RE: Attacks on your credibility
9/9/87
We've been hearing an increasing number of remarks from members of the press corps (national, and regional) about your tendency to go out on a limb with remarks about your campaign. It is clear that at least one of the other campaigns, Gephardt's, has picked up on this and is helping to fan the flames.
In the past few reporters cared if you stretched the truth to make a point or as an applause line. But gone are those days. Because of your steady climb in the polls and Nunn's departure, we are becoming increasingly scrutinized, particularly by the national press.
Your remark on Face the Nation is a good example of how one comment can generate a behind-the-scenes attack by one of our opponents, in this case Gephardt. Granted that our relationship with Post reporters is not great, but Maralee Schwartz was on the kill armed with your comment from Face the Nation that you had campaigned more extensively than all the other candidates put together in the South. That comment is not easy to defend. Fortunately it came out in the press in August, and was dismissed by several reporters I spoke to (Kevin Sack; Mike Pigott; Howard Fineman; Strobe Talbott) as inside the Beltway news. But Maralee told me, during the course of our numerous lengthy conversations that day, that you have a growing reputation as a politician who "stretches the truth to suit a political moment."
Your remark in Texas which was widely circulated by AP outside of the state that you intend to campaign more days than all the other candidates combined in that state did not go unnoticed. Kevin Sack brought it to my attention (though he did not write anything about it) and I'm certain he's filed it away.
This impression that you stretch the truth (or say something one place and something different elsewhere) reared its ugly head in Portland with your remarks about women staffers in your campaign, and in your Administration. You know the problems that created for you at the news conference that followed your remarks to the group, but you should be aware that press clips I am still getting from contacts on the West Coast indicate it was widely reported. [Gore had bragged to the National Women's Political Caucus that women made up half his campaign staff, but was unable to name any of them at a press conference after the speech.] As you know Gephardt's staff told Howard Fineman to ask you about it when he interviewed you for the mini-profile last week.
On a related note, Jim O'Hara and Bruce Dobie ( Nashville Banner and Tennessean reporters), asked me why you felt compelled to switch ribbons on the cattle for a photo opportunity at the Iowa State Fair. I mention that only to make a point that even the smallest action on your part is not going unnoticed. They may not write about it at length, but they are talking among themselves, and your credibility suffered as a result of it.
The point of all this is to caution you about your press image, and how it may continue to suffer if you continue to go out on a limb with remarks that may be impossible to back up. And to point out to you that the other campaigns are also watching this closely, and will continue to seize on opportunities to zing you as you continue to rise in popularity.
The burden is not all on your shoulders. We have got to be more aggressive with the media on all levels. Arlie's help should help make the difference.
* * *
Clearly, Gore's bragging problem is deep-seated. Too bad for him an enabling, codependent press corps has been so willing to write it off as "inside the Beltway news." Now, about that Iowa State Fair photo: Does this mean Al was determined to be photographed in front of the grand prize bull? Even if it meant a switcheroo of the ribbons? Stay tuned.