Cagle World

“Enough!” President Trump admonished CNN’s Kaitlan Collins as she pressed for answers during Monday’s contentious coronavirus briefing. With daily feuding between Trump and media boiling over, stressed Americans should be forgiven if they, too, have had enough.

The president clearly relishes the briefings and the opportunity they provide for him to communicate directly with an audience eager for answers. Many, including Wall Street Journal editorial writers, have criticized the choreography, with its lengthy monologues about the administration’s accomplishments. Then came Monday. The president doubled down, as pundits would put it, by running a campaign-style video produced by White House staff, designed to defend Trump’s handling of the crisis.

It was bad theater, and bad form. Worse, it was the type of thing that can’t possibly help the president achieve any of his goals: ending the pandemic, restoring the economy and winning re-election.

Here’s the timeline, to use another term favored in this soap opera. On April 8 the Journal hit a nerve with an editorial noting, “Mr. Trump seems to have concluded that the briefings could be a showcase for him.” Within hours a presidential tweet responded with the favorite expression, “Fake News!” On April 11, the New York Times published a lengthy report detailing the administration’s slow, or at least uneven, response to the coronavirus outbreak. Similar stories appeared in the Washington Post and via the Associated Press. On April 12, Dr. Anthony Fauci, lead medical adviser on the coronavirus task force, was interviewed by CNN’s Jake Tapper and was obliged to concede the obvious: Earlier mitigation against the virus could have saved lives. He added that there was “pushback” against such mitigation. Within hours the president retweeted criticism of Dr. Fauci that closed with, “Time to #FireFauci.”

It was against that background that Trump decided to treat the White House press corps and viewers of multiple TV outlets to his video mash-up. CNN and MSNBC cut away during part of it. After rejoining, CNN’s on-screen summaries included, “Angry Trump turns briefing into propaganda session” and “Trump melts down…”

The president baited the press, and they gobbled it up. Meanwhile, serious debate continues in television newsrooms about whether to carry the briefings live. Having spent the first years of my career in ABC’s New York newsroom I can state with certainty that there is no more difficult decision than whether to grant airtime to a president – and when to pull the plug.

Maybe in the multi-platform age there is no reason for so many outlets to carry the briefings. Yet, if I were a news executive I would opt to carry all of it during a national emergency – but not if it contains blatant campaign videos. And, as a viewer, I want to watch all of it, even as the sparring between the president and press becomes almost insufferable.

The sad irony here is that the administration and state governors from both parties – along with many business leaders – have succeeded, for the most part, in putting differences aside for the good of the nation. Why can’t the president do the same in dealing with the White House press corps?

At one point in Monday’s briefing the president said to Paula Reid of CBS: “Right now, nearly 20 million people are unemployed, and tens of thousands of Americans are dead. How is this. . . supposed to make people feel confident in an unprecedented crisis?”

Exactly, Mister President. Start repairing and refocusing these briefings. Enough is enough.
–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Donald Trump is running against himself.

Coronavirus has shut down just about everything, including the presidential campaign. With Bernie Sanders out of the way, former Vice President Joe Biden is holed up in his basement with little to do or say. His best chance – and, considering how the administration has botched things during the crisis, a good one – is that Trump will self-defeat.

Few Americans care to think about politics during this time of widespread suffering. Yet, subordination of the presidential campaign, along with other factors related to the pandemic, will certainly affect the election.

Conventional wisdom suggests that a prolonged health emergency and resulting economic collapse would be ruinous to Trump’s chances. Trump seems to realize his political vulnerability, which is why he has turned daily coronavirus briefings into a new incarnation of a Trump reality show.

Hogging the microphone as a national television audience looks on, the president rambles through a mixture of self-aggrandizement, exaggeration and outright distortion. As foolish as he often appears to critics – including many reporters in the briefing room – he is relying on the axiom: Any publicity is good publicity.

Trump’s approval rating has tracked closely with the amount of TV time he has commandeered. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows him with about 50 percent approval in handling the crisis, up sharply from a few weeks ago.

Biden, on the other hand, is stuck in a small TV studio, sending out messages that at the start looked eerily like hostage videos. He is fighting against the axiom: The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. It’s fine to say more coronavirus tests are needed, appropriate to say the nation should not be rushed back to work, understandable to defend the Obama Administration regarding pandemic preparedness. But that’s hardly a platform for a presidential campaign.

Biden faces a serious challenge in appearing relevant as the coronavirus outbreak continues. Consider: On April 2, PBS posted briefings by key political figures regarding the crisis. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom got 40,000 views the first day; New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, 20,000; Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, 37,000; Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, 16,000. And how many views did Joe Biden get? Answer: 7,400.

Understandably, citizens want information from their state and local leaders; they don’t care much right now about national politics. But what impact will this communication gap have over the course of many months? During the Senate impeachment trial several Democratic candidates were forced off the campaign trail and found that it hurt to be silenced, even briefly.

It’s possible that no matter what Biden and Democrats do, and despite epic failures in Trump’s presidency prior to the coronavirus outbreak, November’s election will hinge on what happens with the health crisis and the economy. A warning about that came at a White House briefing from an unlikely source.

The president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, probably didn’t realize the significance of what he was saying when he told reporters: “What a lot of the voters are seeing now is that when you elect somebody to be a mayor or governor or president, you’re trying to think about who will be a competent manager during the time of crisis. This is a time of crisis and you’re seeing certain people are better managers than others.”

Considering Trump’s incompetence so far, it could be that come November he’ll not only be running against himself, he’ll be running on empty.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Responding to public demand and civic responsibility, the three major cable TV channels – Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC – have essentially become all-coronavirus, all the time. But increasingly the outlets face vexing questions: When should the president be covered live? And, moreover, when is it appropriate to cut away?

As President Trump’s daily briefing sessions have grown longer, sometimes reaching two hours, CNN and MSNBC have pulled back. Fox News, which is often shamefully supportive of Trump and his administration, has stayed with all but one White House feed to the very end. Having spent the early years of my career in ABC’s New York newsroom, I can state unequivocally that there is no more difficult decision than when to grant airtime to the president – especially during a national emergency.

Coverage on April 1 provided a good example of how this process is playing out. All three channels carried the White House briefing live, but CNN cut away roughly 30 minutes before Trump stopped taking questions. As it happened, the first question after CNN pulled out was significant: How will Americans without medical coverage – those in the so-called “doughnut hole” – pay for care? Regardless of the answer (Trump said he was studying it), it’s hard to imagine a more newsworthy question.

A few minutes later MSNBC cut away, leaving Fox News alone to carry the briefing live. Among the topics that followed: Should the public be wearing masks? Should churches be holding services? Would Joe Biden’s input be welcome? What should be done about stranded cruise ship passengers? And so forth.

The thinking among some news executives goes like this: (a) The president is stretching the length of the briefings and using them for peripheral purposes, such as bringing corporate CEOs to the stage for a turn in the spotlight; (b) Not all channels need cover every minute of such events, since summaries and clips are available on a wide variety of platforms, and (c) This is an election year and Trump is, in effect, replacing his rallies with daily briefings – leading him to boast about high ratings.

The other side of this journalistic conundrum: (a) In a national emergency, the president should be given wide latitude to communicate with the American people; (b) The public has profound interest in not only the president’s remarks but also the comments of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, and others on the White House response team, and (c) Although there might be a political component, it is not possible for journalists to sift through a live feed looking for it – it’s simply part of presidential privilege.

Before the crisis a clear pattern had developed in which Fox News carried most, if not all, of Trump’s campaign rallies, while CNN and MSNBC carried none. That was understandable. But during the current crisis the considerations are different.

A White House aide, Judd Deere, tweeted that the decision to cut away from a White House briefing is “pretty disgraceful.” That day, when MSNBC cut the president, host Ari Melber explained to viewers, “We cut off the president at this juncture because we have gotten a great deal of information as well as other statements, and we’re going to go through it for you.”

Clearly, by stretching these sessions Trump is, in effect, daring cable channels to cut him off. That said, this is as big a national emergency as most of us can remember. The public is thirsty for information.

I would not cut the president as long as he’s speaking at the podium. If he departs, leaving the vice president and others to speak, I would consider switching to other coverage.

For his part, Trump has fanned flames by scolding some correspondents and attacking news organizations for distributing what he persists in calling “fake news.” His daily discourses are riddled with exaggerations, accusations and outright lies.

But that’s not a reason to hide it. In fact, it’s yet another reason to cover it live.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Walking my dog Dorothy a few months ago I didn’t recognize the fellow waving from the white car until he stopped to say hello. Turns out it was Ed, a casual acquaintance, whose wave I hadn’t acknowledged because I couldn’t see him through the tinted glass.

Since then I’ve made it a point to wave at every car that passes on our quiet street. Maybe I know the driver, perhaps I don’t. But the wave can’t hurt; in fact, it’s rather nice.

Nowadays, with social distancing, we’re all doing a lot more waving. Folks keep their distance but most wave, salute or signal – acknowledging that we’re in this together. Jerry Seinfeld’s old complaint that people don’t offer a proper “thank you wave” doesn’t hold in coronavirus times.

I’ve long been intrigued by simple hand signals. As kids we thought we knew a big secret: If you made a pulling motion with your arm as a truck passed, the driver would respond with a blast of his air horn.

Sitting on the observation deck at our local airport I’ve noted that the ground crew – those folks with the orange flashlights – give each pilot a final salute, which is always acknowledged with a salute from the cockpit. It’s a civilian version of scenes in “Top Gun” when Tom Cruise and the other fighter pilots salute the guys who send them off the aircraft carriers. Another old film, “The Sting,” features a band of lovable con men who identify each other with a forefinger salute across the nose.

It’s believed the origin of hand saluting was in Roman times. A citizen who wished to approach a public official raised his right hand to show that he was not carrying a weapon. According to the Armed Forces Museum, the modern salute evolved as a show of respect. “By 1820, the gesture was officially modified to the current version still used in the military today – the touching of the hat. Hand salute, palm down is believed to be an influence of the British Navy, as deck hands were often dirty and to expose the dirty palm was regarded as disrespectful.”

Many of us will never forget the sight of three-year-old John-John Kennedy saluting his father’s casket as it was carried from St. Matthew’s Cathedral.

During the crisis, President Trump favors the simple thumbs up. Some give the A-OK sign, forming a circle with thumb and forefinger. You might use two hands to make a hand-heart gesture, popularized by the singer Taylor Swift. Or maybe the Hawaiian Shaka, a waggle of the upward thumb and forward-pointing pinkie with the middle three fingers curled to the palm. Perhaps just a nod to strangers crossing the street.

A hand on the heart, often accompanied by a soft pat-pat on the chest, is better than words when it comes to saying “thank you” and “I really care.”

While walking Dorothy the other day I stopped to watch the mail carrier make a delivery across the street. As he pulled away, I felt compelled to offer a military-style salute. He slowed, turned slightly, and saluted back.

Sometimes the smallest gestures have the biggest meaning.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

WASHINGTON – Here is a transcript of tomorrow’s briefing by the coronavirus task force:

PRES. TRUMP: Good morning. I want to update you on our efforts to defeat the Chinese Virus. Today I have closed the border to travel by all non-U.S. citizens coming from China.

REPORTER: Mr. President, you did that on Feb. 2.

TRUMP: That’s right, and I intend to keep doing it until we defeat the invisible enemy, as I call it. It’s invisible. You can’t see it. Mike, do you want to add anything?

MIKE PENCE: Thank you Mr. President. Your bold action in stopping Chinese people from crossing our border has saved millions of lives.

TRUMP: Tony.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Me? Well, yes, sure, closing the border was good. Actually, Italy banned all travel from China three days before the U.S. did. But let’s look forward. We want to flatten the curve. We want more of a mound, not a spike.

TRUMP: Last night I invoked the Presidential Podium Act of 1937. As you know, we’ve been using an outdated, bulky microphone left here by the Obama aAdministration. I touched it repeatedly, lowering it for Tony, then raising it for Mike, then lowering it for Deborah, then raising it for myself. The act gives me broad power to deal with this, but I didn’t have to use it. I received a call from Doug McMillon, CEO of Walmart. He said, “Mr. President, I want to help. I’m giving you two tiny podium mics.” And here they are on our podium. I call it the People’s Podium. They’re beautiful microphones. I want to thank Doug and all the great CEOs who have praised me for acting quickly to close the border to the Chinese who are responsible for this war, as I like to call it.

REPORTER: Has there been any progress in stopping the virus?

TRUMP: That’s a nasty question. Really nasty. But I will tell you, I heard Dr. Laura Ingraham say on TV that there could be dozens of miracle cures that will save us. I have a hunch she’s right.

REPORTER: Laura Ingraham is a host on Fox News Channel. She’s not a doctor.

TRUMP: I don’t know anything about that. Tony.

FAUCI: Me? Well, sure, many of us in the medical profession are skeptical of people who would mislead the public. On the other hand, the president has hope. He hopes that Ms. Ingraham is a doctor. But it’s really about the curve. Where are we on the curve?

TRUMP: Deborah.

DR. DEBORAH BIRX: Thank you Mr. President. I’d like to ask Americans to read both sides of this sheet of paper that we have deployed rapidly to all 50 states. It says the president acted quickly to close the border to travelers from China. That’s something all citizens should think about, especially millennials who will write our history. They must remember how quickly the president stopped people coming from China.

REPORTER: Mr. President, hospitals are running out of supplies…

TRUMP: That’s another nasty question. I took a call just this morning from Donnie Arnold, the CEO of Carnival Cruise Lines. He said he’s giving us dozens of big, beautiful ships to deliver masks to hospitals all over America – in Omaha, Des Moines, Kansas City – wherever we need to get supplies quickly.

REPORTER: Sir, those cities are land locked. Besides, ocean vessels are slow, right?

TRUMP: Ben.

DR. BEN CARSON: The American spirit is under attack, but we can do anything we want if we put our minds to it. Remember, the president acted quickly to stop Chinese from coming here.

TRUMP: Tony, do you have something to add?

FAUCI: Now? Well, ok, I think the president means we will do whatever it takes to distribute supplies. Naval experts probably wouldn’t use cruise ships for supply missions to the Midwest, but I see nothing wrong with exploring all options. We’re on a curve which we must flatten and make it more of a mound. Not a curve, a mound.

REPORTER: What do you say to scared Americans?

TRUMP: I say, trust me. What the hell do you have to lose?

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Two or three times a year, falling trees knock out power at my home, in a heavily wooded section of Central California. When outages stretch over several days food in our refrigerator goes bad, cell phones run down, and flashlight batteries fail. Sometimes roads are impassible and my wife and I are stuck in our chilly, candlelit house.

Big deal? Nope. But if I project that scenario over several months and add to it a raft of deeper concerns related to widespread illness, a picture forms that novelists and late-night radio hosts have been painting for years. Is that how things will look if the COVID-19 outbreak affects, say, 70 percent of the population and remains unchecked?

My office is closed and most of my colleagues are taking meetings only via Skype. I’m writing at the kitchen table, just a few feet from a well-stocked fridge, with music provided by Google Home. It’s quieter than usual since the high school down the street is shuttered. Mail arrived on schedule and newspapers were in the driveway. The TV works fine and on it President Trump said, “Relax. We’re doing great. It will all pass.”

However, I did notice that toilet paper is sold out all over town. When I checked Amazon I was surprised to find that it, too, was, uh, wiped out – except for one offer of four rolls for $72. Minor inconveniences are how it starts, almost laughably at first, until things turn serious.

Shelves are empty now because of hoarding. They’ll be restocked until cracks develop in the production process, in the delivery chain and at retail outlets themselves. As the first wave of workers takes ill, replacements will step in, until there aren’t enough replacements. Folks won’t just be hoarding toilet paper, they’ll be scrambling for basic necessities. Lines of cars will form at gas stations.

The local cable-TV company that I rely upon for phone, internet and television, will suffer breakdowns, manageable at first, but then too great for skeleton crews to handle. People trying to practice social distancing will suffer emotionally as communication is cut.

As of today there is not a single confirmed coronavirus case in our county, but what if before long every other mask-wearing stranger one passes when venturing out in search of supplies is infected? Walking down Main Street at midday will be as unnerving as being out at midnight.

Our community hospital erected a tent in its parking lot to accommodate the expected flood of patients. What happens when that space is filled? When medical supplies run out? When doctors and nurses fall ill?

Maybe I should have paid closer attention to late-night radio ads for a month’s supply of freeze-dried food and gold coins to use when the banks fail. Perhaps I should have ordered that hand-cranked flashlight.

OK. Enough! The scenario doesn’t have to be worst case.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a voice of reason among federal officials grappling with the pandemic, said Sunday, “I think we should really be overly aggressive and get criticized for overreacting.”

So, forgive me for overwriting. It’s just that we need government – as well as our fellow citizens – to spend more time preparing for the worst case, so we can avoid actually having to live it.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

“Where are you from? Russia?” the middle-aged woman asked matter-of-factly, as she walked toward her polling place in Seaside, California on Super Tuesday. She had been approached by a man wearing a Cossack Ushanka hat with a hammer and sickle pin, offering to buy her vote.

Neither she nor her daughter took the bribe, but they seemed intrigued, even charmed, by a guy meddling in our political process. After voting they returned with news that a friend was willing to switch to Donald Trump in the general election if the price were right.

This was an experiment for “Candid Camera.” My crew and I have been eavesdropping on the 2020 campaign, gathering material for a humorous documentary titled “Outvoted.”

I’ve been at this for too many years to be surprised by most of what folks do or say – but the degree of gullibility we observed in this test of Russian electioneering was stunning.

Actor Elijah Morgan claimed to be with the R.F.B.A. (Russians for a Better America). He offered cash to anyone willing to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then switch their support to Trump in November.

One Sanders supporter expressed apparent enthusiasm for the first request, but quickly turned negative after hearing the second part. “That’s not going to happen,” she said about voting for Trump.

A male voter seemed to like the Trump deal, asking “How much do you want to buy (my vote) for?” He lost interest when informed that the payment was in rubles.

Another fellow in a tie-dyed shirt who self-identified as a Trump-supporting “T Man,” examined the 10 ruble note and then happily accepted it to cement his support for the president.

Although our show’s library, compiled over seven decades by my father, Allen Funt, and myself, is widely used in college psychology classes, we’ve never promoted our work as being scientific. Rather, the clips serve to provide real-life support for themes that experts are analyzing.

In this case, our experiment underscores the fact that Americans have been desensitized to flaws in the election process – from failed apps in Iowa all the way to evidence of Russian interference. Yes, Elijah was polite and friendly, but where was the outrage? I was expecting at least a few of the two dozen people he confronted to be what we call “finger-waggers.” We were looking for the type of citizen who would lecture us about how “You can’t do this in America!”

Instead, we had a college student who listened to the pitch and then exclaimed, “That’s so cool!”

A few weeks earlier in Reno, Nevada, I pretended to be from Canada and asked voters about the rules for caucusing. A few got parts right, but none was fully able to explain the process – especially “early caucusing,” in which Nevadans were required to list their top five choices for the presidential nomination.

Others were totally confused about the caucus day itself. “Pete had a caucus, Elizabeth Warren had a caucus, Joseph Biden had a caucus,” insisted one fellow. “So how many caucuses do you have?” I asked. Answer: “I don’t know.” A woman summed it up: “It’s America. They’re trying to confuse the hell out of us.”

As a purveyor of smiles, I’m pleased by some of this confusion; as a political observer I’m dismayed.

Near Columbia University in Manhattan a few years ago we gathered signatures on political “recall petitions.” The elected officials we sought to oust were fictitious, but that didn’t stop most people from signing. One man even signed a blank petition, trusting us to later insert the name of any politician we hoped to remove from office.

H. L. Mencken is credited with reminding us, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Personally, I’m still a believer in Americans’ collective wisdom. But the assault by social media, certain cable-TV hosts and the guy in the White House is testing that.

Asked to sell her vote by a man she thought was a Russian operative, one woman replied, “I like your hat.” The video may be found at: https://youtu.be/8zzwdl3B1C0

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Editor’s note: This column has been updated to reflect the news that Sen. Amy Klobuchar has dropped out of the 2020 race. 

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Editor’s note: This column was updated Wednesday, Feb. 26 with new endorsements

Do political endorsements by newspapers have much impact? It was debatable even back in the 1980s, when daily circulation stood at about 63 million nationwide, and it’s even more uncertain now that the number has dropped by more than half. But while some people study polls, I watch editorial pages for insight about this vexing Democratic presidential race.

Pete Buttigieg had not received a single endorsement from a daily newspaper until a few days ago when he picked up backing of the San Diego Union-Tribune and then, just days before the Feb. 29 primary, he was endorsed by The State, South Carolina’s second largest paper. The former South Bend, Ind., mayor has struggled to gain support from African American voters — the majority in South Carolina. Yet, in backing him The State noted that Democrats have succeeded when they “resisted the temptation to pick status-quo nominees and shown the courage to choose centrist outsiders with fresh, optimistic messages.” Days later Buttigieg was endorsed in Texas by the El Paso Times.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar trails badly in national presidential polls, but she’s in first place when it comes to wining support of newspapers. According to my count, of 18 paid-circulation dailies to make endorsements to date, she has been the choice of 10.

In New Hampshire’s primary Klobuchar finished a surprising third — closer to first than to fourth — and generated over $12 million in contributions. It didn’t hurt that in the closing days she was endorsed by the state’s Seacoast Media Group, the Keene Sentinel, and New Hampshire’s largest paper, the Manchester Union Leader.

“The Democratic nominee needs to have a proven and substantial record of accomplishment across party lines,” wrote the Union Leader, citing Klobuchar’s “ability to unite rather than divide, and the strength and stamina to go toe-to-toe with the Tweeter-in-Chief.”

Her earliest endorsement — and perhaps the most valuable — came from The New York Times on Jan. 19. Although the paper split its support between Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, it called Klobuchar “the standard-bearer for the Democratic center.” The editorial praised her as “the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.”

In Iowa, Warren was endorsed by the state’s largest paper, the Des Moines Register, and less than a week before Super Tuesday she was endorsed in her home state by the Boston Globe. The paper cited Warren “as a leader with the qualifications, the track record, and the tenacity to defend the principles of democracy, bring fairness to an economy that is excluding too many Americans, and advance a progressive agenda.”

There hasn’t been a lot of research regarding the value of print endorsements, but back in 2008 Pew found that only 14 percent of readers indicated that a local newspaper endorsement would be likely to have a positive influence on their votes. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was endorsed by 55 of the nation’s 60 largest papers making endorsements, yet Donald Trump got the last laugh.

However, the more candidates there are in a race, as is the case in current primaries, the more voters pay at least some attention to newspaper recommendations. Editorial boards are able to interview the candidates at length and scrutinize their records and proposals in a way that average voters would find almost impossible to replicate.

As the 2020 campaign moved to Nevada for caucuses on Feb. 22, Klobuchar, along with Joe Biden, picked up the endorsement of the Las Vegas Sun. Klobuchar “possesses both the appetite and ability to return us to our finest America,” the paper wrote. “We have no doubt that she is a unity candidate for the Democrats.”

On Super Tuesday the two biggest states in play are California and Texas. The San Francisco Chronicle as well as The San Jose Mercury News, powerful voices in the Bay Area and in Silicon Valley, endorsed Klobuchar. The Mercury News called her “someone who can change the tone and tenor of our national politics.” In Texas, she received backing from The Houston Chronicle, which concluded, “It’s time for Democrats to look beyond fiery speeches, beyond big ticket promises devoid of price tags, and if possible, beyond the cinematic beckoning of that billionaire button-down Messiah stalking your smartphone, and ask: Who can really get things done?”

I’m convinced that newspaper endorsements — distributed widely by campaign operatives — carry weight that goes beyond paid circulation. In the current race, many Democrats are torn and thirsting for persuasive rationale.

One caveat to the above: News organizations should never issue a split endorsement, as The Times and Sun have done this year. It’s cowardly. Moreover, it shirks the very responsibility that editorial boards are taking on in the first place. Don’t give us 2,000-words of analysis and then conclude by saying we should flip a coin.

But what if I’m mistaken and few people care about newspaper endorsements? OK, then let’s think of these editorial boards not as influencers but as early deciders. They’re looking at the same field that we’re all studying — only sooner in the process and in greater detail. Perhaps their “votes” are prescient.

Editorial boards are nearly unanimous in advocating a center-left choice, not an ultra-progressive. That view might yet be worth more than the paper it’s written on.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Amy Klobuchar’s results in Nevada, Feb. 22, and South Carolina, Feb. 29, will likely be more modest than her surprisingly strong finishes in New Hampshire and Iowa. Yet, the senior senator from Minnesota might have the best chance of any Democrat in America of becoming president – sooner or later.

How could that be? The Real Clear Politics average of all major polls shows her with under 5 percent support nationwide. Well, it takes a bit of odds-making, coupled with a dash of wishful thinking for Klobuchar and her staff, but it goes like this:

First, Klobuchar could still emerge from the narrowing field of Democratic contenders and win the nomination in July, especially if none of the front-runners has enough delegates to prevail on the the first ballot. A deadlocked convention seems increasingly possible, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg dividing the early votes and former Vice President Joe Biden still garnering the most support among African-American Democrats, even as his overall campaign slumps badly. Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, with his massive bank account, must be taken seriously.

Second, if a man is the eventual nominee, he will be compelled to select a woman as his running mate. Both Biden and Buttigieg have pretty much said that, without naming names. The likely choices: Klobuchar, or California Sen. Kamala Harris, who abandoned her own presidential campaign before Iowa. Harris would help Buttigieg with black voters, but Biden and Bloomberg wouldn’t need Harris – they’d need help in the Midwest, where Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016. That elevates Klobuchar, who has never lost an election and has served effectively in the Senate for 12 years.

Third, if Biden were to be elected president he would be 82 at the end of his first term. Bloomberg is nine months older. Although neither will concede during the campaign that they might serve only one term, either man’s vice president would be in an especially attractive position for 2024.

Fourth, should Trump win in November, especially if either Sanders or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren turns out to be his opponent, Democrats will be devastated but also more level-headed when Trump’s second term expires. No more socialistic pie-in-the-sky. Democrats will want a woman with experience, a veteran of the national campaign circuit, a progressive who will at least attempt to reach across the aisle to repair damage caused by eight years of Trump and his cronies.

Taken together, Amy Klobuchar’s odds are surprisingly high.

Watching her at close range during multiple campaign appearances, she rarely failed to impress voters who didn’t know as much about her as they did her more high-profile rivals. Since Iowa she has been on a roll, combining wit and wisdom to galvanize support among Democrats who have found it troubling, yet easy, to identify flaws among the front-runners.

Yes, Klobuchar is tough. Reports early in her campaign identified some harshness in dealing with her Senate staff. As I’ve watched her there’s no doubt that she’s demanding and hands-on, but none on her field staff has even hinted that the boss is abusive.

Klobuchar favors repairing the Affordable Care Act and lowering prices of prescription drugs, but stops short of Medicare for All. She acknowledges the need for immigration reform, but doesn’t advocate abolishing I.C.E. as some progressives have. She seeks to aggressively combat climate change, favors automatic voter registration when people turn 18, and demands mandatory background checks and other measures for tighter gun control – even though she comes from a hunting state.

“Hello, America. I’m Amy Klobuchar and I will beat Donald Trump!” When she began her remarks on election night in New Hampshire with that breath of fresh air, I thought of the song lyric, “Once in Love with Amy, always in love with Amy. Ever and ever fascinated by her.”

Politicians often study “paths” to victory. Amy Klobuchar does not necessarily have the best path to the White House, however among all Democrats seeking the presidency she has the most paths. That doesn’t make for much of a bumper sticker, but it makes her a candidate worth watching.

–

A list of Peter Funt’s upcoming live appearances is available at www.CandidCamera.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. © 2020 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.