Kerry's cunning caution
The reason John Kerry was so cautious about exploiting the Abu Ghraib prison photos was that his chief campaign adviser Bob Shrum was keeping a close eye on the CBS poll ratings. Even in the week when the first stories broke and the grim photos were broadcast on 60 Minutes, Bush had a 44/49 approval/ disapproval rating for his handling of the Iraq war. That was exactly where the ratings were on 10th December, just before Saddam's capture, which sent Bush's score up to 57/36. So Shrum counselled caution, telling Kerry to let the media and Senate surrogates like Ted Kennedy make the running on the story. Kerry, ducking press conferences for over a week, only spoke out and demanded Rumsfeld's resignation when Bush's approval/disapproval ratings sank to 39/58 on 12th May. The same poll for the first time found a majority (55 per cent) saying the US should get out of Iraq, up from 46 per cent in April and 35 per cent last December.
The Abu Ghraib tipping point
The Abu Ghraib photos seem to have been a crucial catalyst, giving a focus to rising doubts about the occupation in Iraq, and pushing the mainstream US media over their tipping point on the war. Ever since the New York Times used the word "quagmire" on its front page just ten days into the Iraq war, the press has been notably wary (some would say intimidated) of rushing to judgement. US central command first announced that "an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility" on 16th January. The Washington Post did not even report it. On 20th January, CNN reported that there were photographs. And then for three months, that was it. Finally, on 28th April, CBS's 60 Minutes aired the picture of the hooded man standing on the box with wires attached to his hands and penis. The Washington Post only reported it on 30th April, and tucked its story (and photos) away on page 24. "I do not, at this point, have answers to why the Post was slow off the mark on this story," confessed Michael Getler, the newspaper's ombudsman.
Was it the power of the images of the hooded man and then the semi-pornographic pictures involving Private Lynndie England that broke the dam? Or was the emergence of a more sceptical public opinion about the war the condition for publishing the pictures in the first place? A bit of both, but probably more of the latter. The media follows the polls. True in Vietnam, true in Iraq. When public opinion turned against the war the self-censorship of the media ended in both cases.
Chicago '68 in New York?
The Republicans thought they were being very clever in picking New York for the party convention in September that would renominate President Bush. But now it looks as if they will get furious protests from the relatives of victims if they even look like exploiting the attack on the World Trade Centre, plus non-stop anti-Bush demonstrations. The biggest of all is likely to be the United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) demo. The UPJ organised New York's massive anti-war protests last year, and the group's permit application says they expect 250,000. New York magazine is running excited predictions of "Woodstock meets Chicago '68" - a reference to the time Mayor Daley's "police riot" hammered the anti-Vietnam protesters at the Democratic convention 36 years ago. The event is hallowed on the left, but people tend to forget that it was followed by the election of Richard Nixon.
Boston blues
The Democratic establishment, which always wanted Kerry to be the nominee, thought they were being clever by picking his home town of Boston for their convention. That was before they remembered what another Bush campaign did to the last Massachusetts liberal candidate, the unlamented Michael Dukakis. So Kerry's ads now stress that he was born on a US military base in Colorado. This may not help, as the television cameras gleefully record the rash of gay weddings promised outside the convention hall. The Democrats might not even get into the hall if the Boston police union goes ahead with its plans to go on strike, and defies the Democrats to cross their picket lines.
What Al Gore didn't spend
There is one little-noticed advantage for the Republicans in delaying their convention until September. It is only when a candidate formally accepts the nomination that he becomes eligible for the federal matching campaign funds - expected to be around $90m each this year. But once that money arrives, the campaign is on a strict spending limit. So Kerry, who accepts his nomination in July, will have to make his money last for three months. Bush's funds only have to last for eight weeks.
Talking of money, Democrats are outraged at Al Gore's plan to release $6m in unspent funds from his 2000 campaign to the party. He lost the election by a handful of votes - and he still had all that money sitting in the bank? Couldn't he have spent it on a last minute ad blitz? Actually, he couldn't. The money could only legally be spent on legitimate legal bills, like challenging vote counts and proving that listed donors actually existed, rather than being names lifted from Chicago cemeteries. The question that nobody has yet put to Gore is why he didn't spend it on a lawsuit to get a full Florida recount.
