Meta We Go

David Broder:

McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura. Obama is much newer to most voters, less familiar and more dependent on the impressions he is only now creating.

If only David Broder had some ability to actually impact perceptions of prominent political leaders. Maybe somebody should give him a column in an important newspaper and frequent television appearances. Or maybe if Broder believes that McCain's reputation for straight-talk oughtn't be impugned by the facts, he might deign to offer us an argument as to why that's the case rather than sniffily informing us about auras.

Comments

Love how the Dean assigns great import to Obama's stiff-arm on the 10 town meetings and the public financing opt-out. 2 issues sure to get goo-goo editorialists' fingers wagging...but has an election ever, ever actually turned on process/mechanics issues like these?

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 23, 2008 9:46 AM

I can't think of someone more deserving of such snark than Old Broder.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 23, 2008 9:47 AM

I would pay big money to see someone call Broder out right to his face, and there is a bonus in doing it on a show like Meet the Press. He the whole system he represents is so totally corrupted and broken its not even funny.

Posted by Napoleon | June 23, 2008 9:48 AM

Love how the Dean assigns great import to Obama's stiff-arm on the 10 town meetings and the public financing opt-out. 2 issues sure to get goo-goo editorialists' fingers wagging...but has an election ever, ever actually turned on process/mechanics issues like these?

But...but the Dean has his finger on the pulse of Middle America! So it must be so!

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 23, 2008 9:50 AM

The better and more uplifting irony is of course that most Americans don't give a damn what Broder says, and can see McCain for what he is better than Washington. McCain has a lower approval rating than Obama. Most Americans are against public financing for elections (there's a shocker, Americans not wanting tax dollars spent on politicians fighting for their own jobs) so the more they say "Obama opted out of public financing, gasp!" the better for Obama.

And for the Brooks and Broders of the world, calling Obama duplicitous and Machivellian will only help him at this point. People are afraid he's naive if they're afraid of anything about him, the more they say he isn't, the better.

Posted by Joel W | June 23, 2008 10:00 AM

but has an election ever, ever actually turned on process/mechanics issues like these?

Sure. It doesn't strain the recall to think of the Democratic primaries of just a few months ago, where Obama used the caucus system to his best advantage. However you characterize it (Obama fans like me tend to think it was a strong strategy and understanding of the game being played, paired with great execution; Hillary boosters would contend that it was a subversion of popular will). But process and mechanics mattered a lot.

And, in fact, the "more debates, please" approach is the customary position of the trailing candidate; the leader usually wants as few chances as possible to screw up. These decisions really are important.

Although Broder's claim that the perception among voters about how they handle the process is of great import is wrong, and my apologies if this is the point you were making.

And then there is this absolutely laughable bit:

...suspending the dollar chase for the duration of the campaign, as McCain but not Obama will do, would be a major step toward establishing the credibility of the election process.

Really? The credibility of the election process? The first 230 years of our nation's history didn't do that? Hell, we've taken far worse hits in the last 8 years, and there still seems to be a peaceful transition of power. This is just dumb.

Posted by Brad L | June 23, 2008 10:01 AM

I would be interested in seeing if Broder ever made similar points about Republicans in the past (I know this is the first opt out in a general election but there must be similar examples from primary campaigns or how the Republicans have out raised Dems in the general).

Posted by Napoleon | June 23, 2008 10:07 AM

Although Broder's claim that the perception among voters about how they handle the process is of great import is wrong, and my apologies if this is the point you were making.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make, apparently not as clearly as I could have. Certainly mechanics qua mechanics can turn an election (more so in the primaries than general).

What I'm saying is that there's this conceit among the high priests of the MSM that, because they care about campaign finance and debates, the voters care just as much. Because David Broder and his cohort are largely unaffected by a failing economy, high gas prices and an affordable housing crisis.

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 23, 2008 10:23 AM

I'm sick to death already about how EVERYONE knows what an honest, straight-talking guy McCain is... how EVERYONE has known McCain for 20+ years. It's simply not true. He came into the consciousness of average Republicans seven years ago and, I'd posit, the average voter only 4-5 years ago. He didn't win the Republican primary and didn't even get close to winning. The average voter can't tell you who the SoS is -- why does the media believe that voters have this enormously long history with the senator from Arizona? Oh yeah, McCain-Feingold...that was a real barn burner issue for most voters.

When the media says "everyone" knows McCain, but not Obama, they are referring to themselves.

Posted by evie | June 23, 2008 10:23 AM

I think it's Broder's aura that's taking the real beating, since we know that he takes cash and favors from lobbies and lies his ass off about it.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | June 23, 2008 11:02 AM

The good news is that Broder admitting McCain has been shifting positions during his campaign is actually a crack in the dike.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 12:10 PM

The people who applauded the 2000 election (with the SCOTUS and Katherine Harris playing Machiaveli) are upset because Obama doesn't want a blue million town meetings? You just can't keep ahead of their unction and mendacity. They're world class.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 23, 2008 1:15 PM

"I'm sick to death already about how EVERYONE knows what an honest, straight-talking guy McCain is... how EVERYONE has known McCain for 20+ years. It's simply not true."

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's just the story the MSM has to go with, because otherwise they'd have to admit that McCain is a horribly weak candidate, representing a fractured and corrupt Party despised by a large majority of the American electorate for wrecking the economy, poisoning the culture, and turning the US into a war-mongering pariah state.

If they admit that, the Democrats win in November. And then they'd have to explain why they spent the last seven and a half years cheerleading for the GOP and slamming the Dems as anti-American defeatists.

They do not want to go there. Much better to fluff for McCain, hope he scrapes through under cover of the "America wouldn't vote for a black guy" meme, and write tons of editorials blaming the weakness of the Democrats for everything bad Bush did.

The 'truth' doesn't matter, only their jobs matter. And you don't get a goos job in the MSM unless you're willing to say whatever the guys who sign off on your pay-packet want you to say.

Posted by Tony J | June 23, 2008 1:22 PM

"I'm sick to death already about how EVERYONE knows what an honest, straight-talking guy McCain is... how EVERYONE has known McCain for 20+ years. It's simply not true."

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's just the story the MSM has to go with, because otherwise they'd have to admit that McCain is a horribly weak candidate, representing a fractured and corrupt Party despised by a large majority of the American electorate for wrecking the economy, poisoning the culture, and turning the US into a war-mongering pariah state.

If they admit that, the Democrats win in November. And then they'd have to explain why they spent the last seven and a half years cheerleading for the GOP and slamming the Dems as anti-American defeatists.

They do not want to go there. Much better to fluff for McCain, hope he scrapes through under cover of the "America wouldn't vote for a black guy" meme, and write tons of editorials blaming the weakness of the Democrats for everything bad Bush did.

The 'truth' doesn't matter, only their jobs matter. And you don't get a goos job in the MSM unless you're willing to say whatever the guys who sign off on your pay-packet want you to say.

Posted by Tony J | June 23, 2008 1:30 PM