David Broder Consigns His Column to the McCain Campaign

Um, I'm pretty sure this wasn't how it played out:

The first question I asked John McCain and then Barack Obama was: How do you feel about the tone and direction of the campaign so far?

No surprise. Both men pronounced themselves thoroughly frustrated by the personal bitterness and negativism they have seen in the two months since they learned they would be running against each other.

"I'm very sorry about it," McCain said in a Saturday interview at his Arlington headquarters. "I think we could have avoided at least some of this if we had agreed to do the town hall meetings" together, as he had suggested, during the summer months.

[...]

Since the idea of joint town meetings was scrapped, the campaign has featured tough and often negative ads and speeches. They culminated last week in an exchange in which Obama said that McCain and his supporters were calling attention to the Democrat's unusual name and the fact that "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Wow. According to Broder, the reason why the campaign turned negative in the last week or two was because Barack Obama decided not to disarm his campaign and agree to give John McCain a whole lot of free media through a series of "townhall" meetings. Interesting. But totally wrong.

The reason why the campaign has turned negative is simple -- it's because the McCain campaign decided to go negative. Obama didn't force McCain's hand. The lack of endless debates that political elites, but not regular voters, watch did not create the negativity. McCain simply realized that he could not win on the issues, that in a vacuum he had no shot at victory, and that instead he had to run shady ads that are effectively nonsensical but nevertheless seem to be hits on his opponent.

The point of noting this is not that the person who goes negative first loses -- because I certainly do not believe this to be true -- or merely to lay blame (though to suggest that no one is to blame, or both candidates are equally culpable, is rubbish). But do note, however, that despite McCain having descended into the muck in recent days, Obama nevertheless has led by 5 or 6 points -- or more -- in almost every reputable non-tracking poll recently, and that Obama continues to hold an electoral college edge. The tenor inside the Beltway may have changed, and Broder may be convinced, but it's not clear to me that the voters are buying it.



Display:


At least David Brooks is a little more honest. (2.00 / 1)

David Brooks might sound like a concern troll, but I think he has a point.

This ability to stand apart accounts for his fantastic powers of observation, and his skills as a writer and thinker. It means that people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves reflected in Obama's eyes. But it does make him hard to place.

Brooks is a conservative, and frequently infuriating, but I think he does have a pretty good grasp on why Obama isn't simply annihilating McCain in the polls.

If Obama is fully a member of any club -- and perhaps he isn't -- it is the club of smart post-boomer meritocrats. We now have a cohort of rising leaders, Obama's age and younger, who climbed quickly through elite schools and now ascend from job to job. They are conscientious and idealistic while also being coldly clever and self-aware. It's not clear what the rest of America makes of them.

So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.

What he's talking about is a Gen X mentality that I've noticed among my peers.  Brooks's analysis sounds about right to me.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST

Drac...i was thinking of writing a diary on this . (none / 0)

because I've seen several conservative writers actually writing in the same vein this week. Looks like a concerted effort. I'm not entirely rubbishing their point (I think this should help us in reinforcing places where we are weak) but suddenly it looks like a ganging up a little bit from these columnists and MSM at the same time..


by louisprandtl on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You should do it (none / 0)

There's definitely a diary in there.  I personally think that there's a difference between what Brooks and, say, George F. Will are doing, which is look at the apparent political reality and trying to figure out what's happening from a conservative (and somewhat unimaginative) viewpoint, and what the actual hack columnists like Krauthammer or Kristol who are in Rove's back pocket.

So yeah, go for it, just make sure you are careful to separate the thoughtful (if wrong) commentary from the propagandist rhetoric.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm really pressed for time to write that diary (none / 0)

as it needs careful thought and parsing through as you noted..Do you want to take a crack at it?  I would love to read that..


by louisprandtl on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't, really (none / 0)

I'm somewhat pressed for time as well; I don't currently have internet from home, and I'm busy at work today.

Also you might've noticed that I haven't written much the last week or so... near terminal lack of inspiration coming from my apartment move and upcoming other projects.

If something comes to me in a burst of insight, I'll post it, though.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Town hall dog and pony shows (none / 0)

Uh yeah, we really need "town hall meetings" where disguised campaign shills ask predigested softball questions to their candidate or low ball, flag pin bullshit to the other.  Naturally, there would be no real debate on issues, just character assassination with a cast of thousands.  Obama knows it would be a rigged game;  refusing to play speaks well of his intelligence.  


by braised cod on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:41:40 AM EST

Re: David Broder Consigns His Column (none / 0)

Negative campaigning when you are losing is a no brainer. Look at the devastating effect of the Swiftboaters on the Kerry campaign after his formal nomination. The only question about McCain's use of it is: is he coming on too early?

And if the Democrats permit McCain to dissociate himself from Bush, we are back in 2000 or 2004 and a too close to call election.


by shyboy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.