DAVID NYHAN

Gore just waves off the media misgivings

By David Nyhan, Globe Staff, May 19, 1999

There is a fundamental difference between politicians who seem to come out of nowhere and those whose lineage bred them to the game from birth.

In the first category would be Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, or Pat Buchanan, aspirants who fell into running for president by a combination of luck and aptitude. The second group, scions of a successful political parent, would include any Kennedy you can name, any Bush you can think of, and the topic of today's screed, Al Gore.

And the difference is that sons of political families tend to be wary and guarded around press and public, as opposed to the more spontaneous, less formal, essentially more free-wheeling gents who became first of their issue to get elected to anything. What sparks this thought is the spate of news media nattering about Gore's presidential campaign, the state of which seems to have displaced Clinton's libido as bone of choice in the media dog's jaws.

I was invited to a brief seance with the vice president Monday, one of a string of journalists run through his hotel suite like banquet waiters being inspected by the head chef before a starchy dinner. A few minutes' chat is not enough time to size up a politician's psyche.

Not when Gore's campaign spends as much time on the pundits' couch as it does. The man is raising money to beat the band; he has only one rival, Bill Bradley, for his nomination, and his institutional support, including among the often-overlooked foot soldiers of organized labor, is vast and deep.

But like crows flapping around a barnyard, waiting for something appetizing to happen, the journalists circle noisily, assuring one another that this is trouble, things don't look good, this guy is toast, watch out for Bradley, George W. Bush will eat Gore's lunch, breakfast, and snack-time delicacy too.

Gore's is the psyche of the moment because he is the recipient of more free advice and second-guessing than anyone since the Clinton of impeachment time. He sheds criticism well -- I'll say that for Gore. After eight years of either being vice president or running for it, bidding for eight more years in the top job, God willing, his skin is thick, his direction clear, and his political battalions are staffed and financed. So why is he subject of so much journalistic foreboding?

"There's a huge disconnect between the real world," he responded evenly, and the slippery, gossipy world of contemporary journalism. He cited what he called "content analysis of future trends when there is no information on which to base it," which sounds to me like 21st century lingo for "They don't know what they're talking about."

Gore waves off all the whispers and misgivings, and in fact the same doubts are voiced about him as filled the air about Vice President Bush, trying to succeed Reagan in the '88 campaign. Vice presidents seem as stick figures, hollow men, when measured against a charismatic incumbent president like Reagan or Clinton.

Why can't Gore do more now to counter the image that he may just be "standby equipment," in Nelson Rockefeller's cryptic phrase? I think it's because Gore, like George Bush the elder or Ted Kennedy in his 1980 run, never needed the media to pump him up, as Reagan and Clinton did. Clinton courted journalists assiduously and used them brilliantly till they turned on him, but by that time he didn't need them anymore.

Both Gore and Bush were sons of US senators; Ted Kennedy, another pol uneasy around reporters, had two senator brothers. These three never needed the media in the same way outsiders did, to define themselves, to carve out elbow room at the table of national political debate.

Gore will not discuss Bradley's challenge, which is smart. Why build the guy up? Bradley starts out with the 35 percent of Democrats who cannot abide Clinton or his faithful sidekick. Ted Kennedy began with roughly that against incumbent Jimmy Carter. But the reality for insurgents is that while you may start out with 35 percent, you end up with 36 percent.

Gore certainly has a Clinton immorality problem. But Gore does not have a Gore immorality problem. With his wife, Tipper, as partner on the stump, Gore presents the image of a family man, a steady customer, with no bimbos in the closet and an appealing family behind him. In contrast to Hillary Rodham Clinton's icy sang-froid, Tipper is more of a cheerleader, an America's sweetheart type, an effective and appealing campaign surrogate.

Gore himself is not a charmer in the Reagan-Clinton sense. But neither are Bill Bradley or George W. Bush. The Texas governor reminds a lot of pros of Ted Kennedy in '80, a consensus favorite with a famous name, not too sure of what he's doing or why he's doing it, who is even warier of the national press pack than thick-skinned Al Gore.

Bush is starting to get cuffed around. After his bandwagon has been run through the media carwash for a few trips, the shine will be duller and dents more apparent. Just as Gore is no Clinton when it comes to schmoozing and oozing, this Bush is no Reagan, either.