 | |
 James Naughtie
Jim reflects on John Kerry's win in New Hampshire, the Hutton Report as viewed from the United States, plus how our Listener's Law is going down stateside.
Saturday, January 31:
The New Hampshire Result, plus the听Hutton Report viewed from the US.
Being in the United States this week was like having an out-of-body experience. While the copies of the Hutton report were dropping on desks in Whitehall and the 91热爆, I was somewhere in a snowdrift in New Hampshire wondering where General Wes Clark had gone.
I was trying to find him, and wondering about the vote in the Democratic primary that night. I confess that I had pushed Lord Hutton, for a few hours, to the back of my mind. He would soon return.
Unlike Wes Clark, who disappeared in a kind of rolling maul round a corner in Manchester, New Hampshire, surrounded by dozens of cameras and reporters, placard-waving supporters and hangers-on.
This was a candidate unused to the business of electioneering. Generals are supposed to give orders. Poor Wes was realising that not only was there not an order he could give if he did, no-one would listen. He looked as if he was beginning to wonder if this presidential business was a good idea after all, not least because the street campaigning that is obligatory in New Hampshire had to take place in temperatures that dipped to 鈥 20 degrees. Ski long johns were obligatory. At one stage, my pen froze.
But there were diversions. I had an extraordinary encounter with Bob Shrum, one of Senator John Kerry鈥檚 main strategists, who used to write Teddy Kennedy鈥檚 speeches among other things, and who was happy to give us an interview on Sunday night while his candidate was performing in a fire station in front of hundreds of people at a 鈥渃hilli feed鈥 (the chilli was to keep the cold out). We did our interview, and then he turned to an interesting subject鈥..our Listeners鈥 Law.
My woolly hat almost fell off. He asked how the bill allowing householders to shoot burglars was getting on (admittedly he was roaring with laughter as he asked the question). I could hardly believe it. We prattle on about how far Today鈥檚 tentacles reach, but this seemed extraordinary. But here we were, shivering beside a fire engine, with a candidate laying happily into George Bush behind us, talking about the 鈥淭ony Martin bill鈥. It was weird.
It is a reminder, though, that the 91热爆 is more listened to and watched (on cable and satellite) in the States than ever before and that meant, of course, that a couple of days later, when the Hutton storm broke, just before I left for home, there was intense interest, and a good deal of mystification.
Quite how a few words, uttered just after six o鈥檆lock one morning in May, could lead to all this, via the tragedy of Dr Kelly, could scarcely be comprehended: everyone wanted to know what was going on. So, I confess, did I.
At home, I needn鈥檛 tell you, everything quickly became clear. When I heard the Labour MP Sion Simon saying on this morning鈥檚 programme (Saturday) that there was a complacent and smug atmosphere at the 91热爆 I could hardly believe my ears.
There are many different views about the Gilligan affair inside the 91热爆 as well as outside it 鈥 how could it be otherwise? - but the tide of disbelief after the publication of the Hutton report was unmistakable. Far from being smug, the atmosphere consisted of perplexity, anger and genuine nervousness about the future of the 91热爆鈥檚 independence.
This wasn鈥檛 a complacent response, ignoring the important questions that have been raised in the course of this argument, but a display of shock at the nature of the report. In many respects, it was felt to be deeply unfair.
Anyone who thinks that this was treated lightly inside the 91热爆, or that the response was complacent, hasn鈥檛 talked to any 91热爆 staff. It鈥檚 been a horrible week, sad and worrying. No-one is smug, I hope. Everyone is taking this very seriously indeed.
The response of listeners, of course, has been extraordinary. Some are very critical of us others are not. We鈥檙e aware of how important all this is seen to be to those who care about the programme. That鈥檚 important. It means that the debate which follows Hutton will be informed and will be understood to be important. Above all, that鈥檚 what matters.
Against that background, I suppose the doings of Howard Dean or Wes Clark on John Edwards don鈥檛 seem very important. But they are. I鈥檒l return to the American fray on a future occasion, but let me just say that we may be on the verge of a vintage presidential campaign, one that will certainly be the most ideological for a generation.
The Democrats are finding a theme 鈥 an assault on 鈥渟pecial interests鈥 which they say have a grip on the Bush administration, a populist message on health care and poverty, and an assertion that a concern for national security doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean supporting the Bush foreign policy.
The president, of course, hasn鈥檛 got into his stride yet, and he is going to have the biggest war chest in American political history which will allow him to dominate the airwaves with his advertisements. He is also a formidable campaigner (a fact often underestimated here) and Senator John Kerry 鈥 he鈥檚 now a strong favourite for the Democratic nomination 鈥 will have to struggle long and hard (and shed some of his Al Gore-Bob Dole air of worthiness) if he鈥檚 to remove him from the White House.
Let me make one prediction, however. When it comes to selecting a vice-presidential candidate, if Kerry does prevail at the convention, his eye will settle on Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Edwards has a smile which suggests that he may be a plastic politician, but don鈥檛 be fooled. This is a remarkable performer, with a fluent Southern populism, which may yet play an important part in this year鈥檚 election. It鈥檚 not inconceivable that he could beat Kerry, though I doubt it. Not that I would bet on it. I gave up political wagers after a spread bet went badly wrong in 1983鈥.don鈥檛 ask.
But watch Edwards. A class act.
All that reminds me of some remarkable scenes in New Hampshire. The New England tradition of town hall meetings is alive and well. They packed into every meeting 鈥 fifteen hundred for Edwards here, a thousand for Clark there, three thousand for Kerry at his climactic rally, and so on.
This was real politics, with candidates having to answer questions at four or five meetings a day. Sadly, in the later primaries it will be more a matter of the advertisements and TV performances, but there is still life in the system, and it can be celebrated.
Unfortunately, it all seems a long time ago, though it鈥檚 only a couple of days since I got back. I felt I was coming back to an upside-down world. Some American friends have been emailing me to ask what Hutton is all about. I expect to be hunched over a computer for quite a long time before I can come up with a reasonable pr茅cis. Where to begin? And where will it end?
Monday, January 26:
Ahead of the primary.
I鈥檓 writing this in a 1920s theatre in Manchester, New Hampshire, waiting for Howard Dean. We鈥檙e also waiting for Martin Sheen, the President in The West Wing on television. Reality and artifice: they鈥檙e both late.
Despite all the paraphernalia of a modern campaign, planned to the minute for months on end, this election still retains the feeling of politics in the raw, of unplanned outcomes.
How especially true that is for Howard Dean, whose name stares out at me from the stage as it does from thousands of lampposts and trees and front gardens across the state.
The man who ran the first true internet campaign and created a new activist army is fighting here to retain anything of the aura of front runner. The week since his giant stumble in the Iowa caucuses has been an effort to retain the buoyancy of his campaign, to persuade everyone that he鈥檚 not about to sink.
This seems fickle, and even unfair. But the spectacular ups and downs of these primaries and this process shouldn鈥檛 be the only measure of their significance. In the last few days this contest has throbbed with the pulse of real, serious politics.
Town halls have been bulging with voters asking questions of the candidates all the contenders have been required to perform at debates and round tables they鈥檝e been faced with thousands of voters who asked them, with an almost na茂ve belief in the importance of the face-to-face encounter, precisely what their views are on this issue or that. No-one who has watched this could dismiss the primary as a media event alone.
It says something important 鈥 that this presidential year promises a tumultuous campaign.
The crowds are bigger than at any primary in recent memory. Senator John Kerry got two and half thousand for a rally with Ted Kennedy yesterday. Not far away Senator John Edwards was speaking to a thousand, and General Wes Clark to a college hall with at least as many. Meanwhile Dean was packing them in somewhere up-state.
The theatre where I sit is going to be full Wes Clark is taking a bus across the state to a dozen meetings today Kerry was on the eastern seashore at dawn. And it will continue until the polls close tomorrow night.
It is, of course, a sort of leadership election. From this primary, in which Democrat-registered voters and independents can cast their votes, a winner will emerge who will go to a string of southern primaries next week, where the others will try to win back the advantage, and so it will go until 鈥淪uper Tuesday鈥 on March 2 and more than a dozen primaries including New York and California when, in all probability, we will know who will have the votes to win the nomination at the convention in Boston at the end of July. These New Hampshire votes will set the course for that contest.
If Kerry prevails, which is today鈥檚 conventional wisdom, Dean must get a good second place to revive his campaign. Edwards and Clark are vying for the spot of challenger who challenge Kerry (or Dean) in the south and take the fight through to Super Tuesday. The line-up tomorrow night, which we鈥檒l be bringing you on Wednesday morning鈥檚 programme, will give some shape to that fight.
The most arresting quality of these last days in this campaign is the ideological temper of the candidates. Their stump speeches all focus on the rage of Democrats at an administration which they believe has moved far to the Right.
They talk again and again about the number of Americans without healthcare, about jobs, about the 鈥渟pecial interests鈥 represented by big corporations and their lobbyists who, they argue, have the White House in their grip. The campaign that beckons in the autumn is going to be fierce, the most starkly ideological for many a long year.
No-one is going to be able to say (though Ralph Nader, if he launches a third-party campaign, may well try) that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable and that the votes in November will make no difference. This campaign, on the Democrat side, is driven by rage.
Edwards, the first term senator from North Carolina who has been a revelation in this contest is a good example of the power of this anger. He is the most fluent of the candidates, a trial lawyer with a silver southern tongue and an argument which cuts deep. He persuades crowds with his talk of 鈥渢wo Americas鈥 鈥 in health, wealth and happiness 鈥 and bangs a familiar populist drum with admirable gusto.
Across the south he may turn out to be as potent a force as the young Clinton was more than a decade ago, and it鈥檚 in that territory that the Democrats desperately need to find a way of challenging George W. Bush鈥檚 popularity. If they don鈥檛, they wont win back the White House.
Kerry and Clark, the former NATO supreme commander, argue that they can neutralise Bush on the war and national security by being impossible to caricature as irresponsible liberals Dean can say he is the original anti-war candidate Edwards can say he is the candidate who promises the clearest populist agenda for the Americans who鈥檙e losing their jobs and their prosperity.
We shall see. This campaign started with the familiar complaint that the candidates all seemed a little dull and a little uninspiring, which gave the odd ball Dean, a remarkable performer, the chance to emerge as the fresh face who might give the Democrats a lift. As it has become more serious, and now on the eve of the traditional opening of hostilities, that picture has changed.
Dean, who will be on this stage in a moment, is still a formidable force (with enough campaign money to keep him on the road whatever happens here) and the others have begun to engage in a serious and impressive debate.
With assistance of that traditional New England sense of direct democracy 鈥 this is the land of the town meeting where there鈥檚 a self-conscious absorption in local democracy 鈥 we鈥檙e watching the start of what I suspect will be a vintage election. Kerry may not be FDR, Dean no JFK, Edwards no Clinton yet, Clark no Democrat Eisenhower but you sense in the snow-draped towns and hamlets of this state a political argument that will be richer than perhaps we had expected.
If it is true, as all the pollsters tell us, that the United States is deeply politically divided 鈥 a 50-50 nation as the current buzz phrase has it 鈥 then we will have a campaign to savour.
So even if I am waiting for a film star, and even if John Edwards did have Glenn Close at his side yesterday and Wes Clark appeared with Ted Danson of Friends, New Hampshire matters.
In the newsletter at the end of the week I鈥檒l pull back the curtain of some of the oddities of this strange campaign, and some of its unexpected moment, but for now, on the eve, of the vote it鈥檚 worth remembering that for one of these candidates, as for the President himself, this year promises a gargantuan struggle, whose outcome will affect us all.
 Back to Reports 91热爆page
| | | | |
| | |
