All in the Family

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 7:22 AM

I was about to start fulminating about how the media are covering the spouses of White House aspirants more intensively than the candidates themselves, but now it turns out that kids are being dragged in as well.

A week after the New York Times ran a lengthy front-page profile of Chelsea Clinton, Slate informs us of some breaking news involving Rudy's teenage daughter:

"There's one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can't count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter's. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

"On her profile, she designates her political views as 'liberal' and--until Monday morning--proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group 'Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack).' According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it."

So: an outrageous invasion of privacy by a voracious media? Not this time. These days, posting something on your Facebook profile is the equivalent of standing in Times Square with a banner. Especially if you're the daughter of a presidential candidate. Yes, technically it's only supposed to be visible to your friends, but remember the groping photos of Miss New Jersey? Everything gets out in the digital age. Not only is Caroline not backing her father, she's switched parties!

Rudy declined comment yesterday, but Barack was loving it: "That's very nice. We think it's wonderful that we are attracting support from young people all across the country. I can't wait to meet her."

Now back to the spouse question. I'm not saying that women, especially women who play active roles in their husbands' campaigns, should be put on some kind of pedestal and shielded from media inquiry. But let's face it: much of this has to do with the titillation value.

What are these women really like? Who did they sleep with before their current husbands? What is the nature of their marriages? Do campaign officials resent them?

On Sunday, the New York Times had a front-page piece on Judith Giuliani, The Washington Post had a front-page piece on Jeri Thompson, Newsweek also ran a Jeri piece, the Chicago Sun-Times carried an interview with Michelle Obama, and the Los Angeles Times explored the vital issue of sexuality in campaigns.

Yes, they're all running to be first lady, but the gossipy nature of these pieces, and the Vanity Fair profile of Judith, the former mayoral mistress, suggests we all just want a break from competing health care plans and debates over whether to invade Pakistan.

"In March," reports the LAT, "an aspiring Republican presidential couple -- Rudolph W. and Judith Nathan Giuliani -- appeared in a fashion layout in Harper's Bazaar that accompanied an interview with Mrs. Giuliani. The most striking thing about the feature, a coming-out of sorts for Judith Giuliani, was their pose. Sitting on the arm of her husband's chair, eyes closed, she tipped her head down, caressed his face and planted a kiss that looked like a precursor to something steamier . . .

"A couple of months later, after seeing a photograph of presumed presidential hopeful Fred Thompson's much younger wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson, in a low-cut gown that would be modest on a Hollywood red carpet but could be shocking at a Washington social event, MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough quipped, 'Do you think -- think she works the pole?' . . . Not long after that, Cindy McCain, wife of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), gave Fox News talk show host Greta Van Susteren a tour of the couple's new Phoenix condo. Mrs. McCain wore a pink blouse with a plunging neckline, and heavy makeup that would not have been out of place at a black-tie event.

"In this long, hot campaign season, intimations of sexuality are sprouting like wildflowers along the road to the White House. Not that the commingling of sex and politics is anything new, but for what seems to be the first time in memory, voters are being confronted with questions that don't usually break the surface: Just how sexy is a first lady allowed to be? And what constitutes an appropriate display of affection between candidates and their spouses? With a nominating field full of older men and younger wives, experts say that a youthful, even sexy wife offers a none-too-subtle message about the vitality of the candidate."

Silly me--I thought the media were sending a none-too-subtle message about their priorities.

Here's the NYT piece:

"It has not been an easy few months for Judith Giuliani. Her rollout to the public received rocky reviews from the political class, Republicans included. A series of negative articles about her shopping habits, marital past and supposedly testy relations with campaign staff followed. Her appearances alongside her husband, Rudolph W. Giuliani, grew suddenly scarce -- and some analysts suggested that she keep it that way.

"So it was perhaps no surprise that at a recent lunch in downtown Manhattan, Mrs. Giuliani offered this self-assessment: 'When it comes to politics, I'm new to this.'

"Over the course of a two-hour interview, Mrs. Giuliani, 53, talked for the first time about how she met Mr. Giuliani, 63, and about their first date. (He asked her out, she said.) But she returned again and again to her inexperience as a political wife . . .

"Not becoming a distraction to her husband, a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, appears to be an elusive goal."

Newsweek is on the Jeri beat:

"In Thompson's case, the powerful-spouse bit is no act. Within his still-unofficial campaign, Jeri has emerged as the would-be candidate's top political adviser and de facto campaign manager. She urged her husband to run in the first place. To prepare for the rigors of a campaign, she recruited staff, including a friend, longtime Republican PR hand Mark Corallo, to help as an unpaid spokesman.

"As the run got underway, Jeri quietly assumed responsibility for many day-to-day details, say campaign advisers who didn't want to be named talking about internal matters. She oversees her husband's travel and fund-raising events, and has the power to hire and fire staff. She also grooms Thompson's public image. When lefty filmmaker Michael Moore challenged Thompson to a debate on health care last spring, Jeri persuaded him to film a tough-guy video response that became a YouTube hit. Apparently, Jeri has not been shy about using her authority. The campaign advisers say she's smart and tireless--but her spare-no-feelings management style doesn't always have the intended effect. Last month Tom Collamore, a former Reagan aide and tobacco lobbyist hired as campaign manager, quit after what a Thompson associate called 'personality conflicts' with Jeri. Three other aides followed."

Money quote, from an unnamed Thompson adviser about his delayed entry into the race: "People are starting to wonder if she's more into this than he is."

And here's the WashPost look at the woman whose maiden name is Jeri Kehn. She "spent much of her 20s biding her time in Nashville without a clear career path, living with a boyfriend whose main claim to fame was getting arrested in Red Square for unfurling a pizza-parlor banner in the last days of the Cold War. Kehn left three court judgments behind her in Nashville, one of which remains unpaid today, and a court twice garnished her wages.

"But after meeting Fred Thompson, Kehn began establishing herself in Washington Republican circles, and marriage more than consolidated her place in the city."

Peggy Noonan is better at rapping knuckles than I am:

"It's gotten catty out there. Jeri Thompson is a trophy wife, as is Cindy McCain. Michelle Obama is too offhand and irreverent when speaking of her husband, and Judith Giuliani is a puppy-stapling princess. Even Hillary Clinton was a focus, for wearing an outfit that suggested, however faintly, that underneath her clothing she may be naked, and have breasts.

"Why these stories? Because it's August and no one wants to think. Because the campaign is too long and reporters have to write about something. Because cable news has an insatiable need for guests, and if you write a story cable producers can easily find tape for, you get to go on Olbermann or O'Reilly and seem to publicize your paper, which will please your bosses, with the added benefit of giving you personal face time, which essentially asserts, in the world of high-level politics, that you exist.

"None of these stories have come from blogs but from Pulitzer Prize winners at major newspapers and veteran journalists at magazines. For all their harrumphing about the crucial role they play in democracy (and it is crucial) and the seriousness of their professional intent (and it is sometimes serious), the mainstream media is full of the cattiest human beings in history with the exception of the vast political consulting/advising class of Washington, i.e., the gargoyles with BlackBerrys in the back of the SUV, whose job is not only to help their guy but hurt the other guy. . . .

"However. It is also true the press is paying attention to prospective first ladies because in an age in which presidents are always in your face, first ladies are often in your face. It actually matters if people like them, and it can hurt, on the margins, if they don't. And these days wins are marginal."

The Chicago Sun-Times interview with Obama's wife is a bit more substantive:

"Michelle didn't hesitate when I asked her if we are making too much of race in her husband's campaign.

" 'I think race is a reality of our society,' she said. 'We've made great strides, but we know we've got a lot of work to do. You know I can go to my neighborhood and see race played out. It still exists. It wouldn't be fair to say that people are making too much of it because it is still a factor.'

"At the same time, she points out that 'assessing Barack's blackness' isn't a 'Barack issue.' 'The truth of the matter is that as I was growing up, talking too proper, going to certain schools, people told me that. We are still struggling as a people with what is black,' she said.

" 'The thing that I worry most about . . . is not what it says about me and Barack. What does it say to our children? [T]hat somehow Michelle Obama is not black enough? Well, shoot, if I'm not black enough and Barack's not black enough, well who are they supposed to be in this world?' "

Bonus points for candor.

Betsy's Page sees a stark contrast:

"It is clear that Michelle Obama is receiving better press than the two Republican spouses. Since I don't know any of these women, it could be well-deserved coverage. Mrs. Obama represents everything that conservatives admire - someone who worked hard to achieve what she has achieved as a graduate of a top law school, successful lawyer, and an apparently devoted wife and mother.

"Mrs. Thompson has not been well-known before. The articles that talked about her as a 'trophy wife' were demeaning and uninformative. The Washington Post piece tells us a lot of new information and most of it is not very positive. They go into her life living with a guy in Tennessee and the debts that she left behind there. I'd seen her referred to as a successful and smart GOP operative, but it seems, from this article, that her rise in GOP circles coincided with her romance with Fred Thompson . . .

"The Thompson campaign should have been ready for such a piece and have been out in front of the media instead of depending on 'friend of Jeri' type quotes to establish her image with the American people. They should recognize that she is an unknown to the American public. If the only glimpses we have of her are photos of her in an evening dress and negative reports in the media, she's going to get a negative image that she may never turn around. They could have put her out there for some soft interviews early on so that we know more about her and get to hear her own voice before the political press gets hold of her."

A new USA Today poll: Hillary over Obama, 48 to 26. Rudy over Fred Thompson, 33 to 21, with McCain at 16 and Romney at 8.

At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan reports from the Kos convention on the contrasting styles of the two Democratic front-runners:

"As you might expect, Hillary is exceedingly well prepared on the stump. She's shown it in the debates, and it's even more evident when she's in a room fielding questions across a broad array of issues. Her knowledge of certain topics is so detailed, in fact, that her wonkishness often crosses the line from being impressive to mind-numbingly boring.

"In her break out session, for example, Clinton took the first question on No Child Left Behind and gave a 15-minute disquisition on the merits of the educational growth model which, while it may have left NEA members in a state of sheer ecstasy, would leave most voters contemplating the relative merits of spending time in a dentist's chair.

"But while Hillary does not leave the room filled with warmth, she does leave a favorable impression as someone who is smart, disciplined, has a three-point plan for everything and generally knows what the heck she is talking about.

"Obama is equally impressive, though in a distinctly different way. Whereas Hillary responds by ticking off details with the authority of a schoolmarm, Obama comes across as thoughtful -- often conspicuously so, pausing even in the middle of an answer to gather his thoughts or offer some aside. This too has been evident in the debates, usually to Obama's detriment. He is much more well equipped, both as a matter of style and substance, to speak in longer form before live crowds. And though Obama is nearly as adept at talking policy as Clinton, it's not his strength."

At the same debate, Hillary parried Edwards by saying she would not pledge to refuse money from Washington lobbyists because they also represent good causes. Garance Franke-Ruta is puzzled:

"It's true that there are a lot of lobbyists for groups that the Democrats support. Educators, nurses, and so on all do have lobbyists. But when people talk about Washington lobbyists, and the problem with Washington lobbyists, that's not who they are talking about. Clinton knows that. Why, then, defend lobbyists? Her answer on this issue was among the most baffling she has given so far this campaign, because a simple side-stepping cop-out of an answer would have seemed less incredible.

"Could her commitment to nuanced realism be not just the thing that makes her seem hard-headed and experienced but also her Achilles heel? It's hard to imagine any kind of positive political calculation that could have led her to making that particular defense in that particular way."

Finally, Blake Fleetwood doesn't say how he knows this, but he quotes Bill Clinton at a Hamptons fundraiser as telling this story about the WSJ editorial page:

"Completely predictable . . . it's like Pavlov's dogs.

"The WSJ editorial board began attacking a major American corporation in the US every day in the editorial page. The representative of the corporation set up a meeting with the editorial board. And he said, 'I have brought my books here . . . I have never done this for anybody . . . I am going to show you why what you are saying is wrong.'

"He got about two minutes into his presentation and the whole editorial board said, 'wait a minute . . . we don't care . . . we attacked you because you are supporting Bill Clinton. We don't believe that a big American corporation should support Bill Clinton.' He said, 'if I stop supporting him, will you quit attacking me?'

" 'Absolutely,' they replied.

"The guy called me and . . . I said . . . send a check to Bob Dole!

"He sent a check to Bob Dole, and announced it in the newspapers, and the WSJ never said one bad word about his company again."