by Frank James
In his column today, syndicated columnist David Broder, the dean of Washington reporters, tried to buck up Sen. Barack Obama’s supporters, especially those in Chicago, who may be growing gloomy because of his failure to close the gap in national polls between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Broder’s point is that despite such polls, there’s still time for Obama to rebound, although the Clinton people will do everything they can to foil him. Broder gives as an example how the Clinton campaign drowned out Obama’s message on the anniversary of the day in 2002 he spoke out, presciently in his supporters’ view, against the then impending war.
The Obama campaign, therefore, announced that the fifth anniversary would be a special day for them, the date of a major foreign policy address. After some debate, the campaign decided not to stage a repetition of the outdoor rally but rather to have him speak in a college auditorium, a better setting for a thoughtful address.
The speech that he delivered at DePaul University here was as serious a discussion of the lessons of Iraq and the future of American foreign policy as anyone could wish. And, as I was repeatedly reminded by the Obama people, it got next to no national press coverage. It was briefly summarized on Page A8 of The Post, Page 11 of the Boston Globe and Page 20 of the New York Times.
Why? Because the Clinton campaign, with exquisite timing, that same morning released its latest-quarter fundraising totals, which put her ahead of Obama for the first time in the money race. The Page 1 stories in the next day's Times and Post were simple: Clinton, leading all the polls, now leads in campaign finances as well.
The pessimists in the Obama camp worry that never again will they have such an opportunity to highlight his early opposition to the war -- in contrast to Clinton's vote for the resolution that President Bush used when he ordered the attack on Baghdad.
That is probably an exaggeration. Future debates, especially those coming in Iowa and New Hampshire, may provide more openings. It is also the case that the voters in those states are far less firmly attached to their current candidate preferences than polling numbers would suggest. There is, in fact, time for Obama to rally. It's just hard for his people to believe it right now.
What Broder doesn’t say is that reporters who write cover politics have a vested interest in Obama’s supporters going the distance and not giving up, in making the race as contested as possible.
Journalistic blood flows hotter obviously when there’s a truly competitive contest than one where a candidate threatens to run away with the nomination.
So we have an ulterior motive.
(David Broder photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press)
• 
• 
• 
Comments
What Broder also doen't mention is the fact that the media and all the pundits, therein, want this to be the penultimate presidential campaign. A virtual subway series, clash of the New Yawkers, battle of the big apple, the war between Hillary/Bill and Mr. 911 himself played out on the national stage for the rest of us country bumpkins, hayseeds,
and nondescripts to be dazzled by. Mark my word. They are going to talk up the two of them until it happens.
Posted by: GW | October 25, 2007 3:18 PM
Keep Hope alive? Bob unfortunately died back in July 2003.
Posted by: Hari | October 25, 2007 3:33 PM
Keep Hope Alive! I think David Broder is a life- long Cubs Fan.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 25, 2007 3:36 PM
David Broder? You have got to be kidding me. No one has taken him seriously in years.
Posted by: Cheryl | October 25, 2007 3:52 PM
The media complain - post-elections - when no one votes. No one votes because the media have already polled the prospective voter to death. By the time the election rolls around, would-be supporters stay home.
My message to the people: Ignore the polls and articles about polls. Just vote.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | October 25, 2007 4:10 PM
Dave Broder is the most astute journalist in DC. Pay attention to him. If polls were
the decider, John Kerry would be president. Remember? The exit polls in the '04 election had Kerry winning by 67 percent. The Obama supporters are enthusiastic and will go to the polls. The Clinton backers are, at best, lukewarm to her candidacy and many would welcome an alternative.
Posted by: Grant | October 25, 2007 5:11 PM
Media Liberal tries to help failing campaign of fellow Liberal. We'll see more of this in the coming months.
The media self-interest in promoting a primary slugfest is obvious. And when elderly Liberal icon Broder claims that Obama doesn't get enough publicity--well, Broder must not be reading the Chicago Tribune or the Swamp.
Posted by: Bruce | October 25, 2007 5:45 PM
Bruce, didn't the brain-dead left try and tell us a few weeks ago that Broder was a conservative columnist???
Posted by: John D | October 25, 2007 10:59 PM
Bruce loses all credibility, if he had any to begin with, by labeling Broder a liberal. He is a centrist by any measure. Just because Bruce thinks everyone left of Mussolini is liberal, doesn't make it so.
Posted by: dt | October 26, 2007 1:15 AM
dt, Broder is only a centrist to the Far Left because to the Far Left anything to your right is conservative. Broder is a liberal through and through. He's not Far Left, but he is an unabashed liberal.
Posted by: John D | October 26, 2007 9:36 AM
dt, Broder is only a centrist to the Far Left because to the Far Left anything to your right is conservative. Broder is a liberal through and through. He's not Far Left, but he is an unabashed liberal.
Posted by: John D | October 26, 2007 9:37 AM
Clearly Dyslin and Mr. Tedious Bruce don't spend a lot of time reading David Broder. Sorry, fellas, he's an establishmentarian more than anything else.
You want liberal columnists, read EJ Dionne, Harold Meyerson, Anne Appelbaum, Michael Kinsley. You want centrists read David Ignatius and David Broder. You want neocon read Charles Krauthammer or Jim Hoagland. You want paleoconservative, read Robert Novak and George Will.
David Broder is about as liberal as Hillary Clinton is, which is to say, not very.
The country is clearly waking up to the fact that we have been hijacked by ideologues, and I'm not talking about Al Qaeda. Apparently, the tip of the bell curve where the majority operates is now the "Far Left."
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 26, 2007 10:46 AM