The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Video Report

David Broder Talks to Pa. Voters

With one week to go until the Keystone State primary, David Broder visits the Philadelphia suburb of Upper Dublin, Pa. for one of his regular series of visits with voters. Sitting on the bench outside the Upper Dublin Public Library, Broder speaks with several Democrats and a few Republicans as they drop off and pick up books and tax forms.

Broder makes regular trips nationwide to speak with voters. He last visited Upper Dublin in the days leading up to the 2004 presidential election. Video by Ed O'Keefe, washingtonpost.com.

Posted at 9:14 AM ET on Apr 16, 2008  | Category:  Video Report
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: British Prime Minister to Meet with McCain, Clinton, and Obama | Next: Bruce Springsteen Backs Obama


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I love David Broder!

Posted by: ang | April 16, 2008 6:38 PM

.


The 44th President of the United States

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

.

Posted by: . | April 16, 2008 4:08 PM

VJ - thank you so much for your commentary. You remind me why I have made the decision I have.

Proud supporter and donater.

Obama '08

Posted by: jencm | April 16, 2008 3:54 PM

I Was There: What Obama Really Said...David Coleman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html
Last Sunday evening I attended the San Francisco fundraiser that has been the center of recent political jousting. The next day, when asked about the talk Obama delivered, I too commented about his answer to a question he was asked about Pennsylvania. Over the past week, though, I have had a Rashomon-like experience concerning those remarks.
Clinton, McCain, and media pundits have parsed a blogger's audio tape of Obama's remarks and criticized a sentence or two characterizing some parts of Pennsylvania and the attitudes of some Pennsylvanians. In context and in person, Senator Obama's remarks about Pennsylvania voters left an impression diametrically opposed to that being trumpeted by his competitor's campaigns.
At the end of Obama's remarks standing between two rooms of guests -- the fourth appearance in California after traveling earlier in the day from Montana -- a questioner asked, "some of us are going to Pennsylvania to campaign for you. What should we be telling the voters we encounter?"
Obama's response to the questioner was that there are many, many different sections in Pennsylvania comprised of a range of racial, geographic, class, and economic groupings from Appalachia to Philadelphia. So there was not one thing to say to such diverse constituencies in Pennsylvania. But having said that, Obama went on say that his campaign staff in Pennsylvania could provide the questioner (an imminent Pennsylvania volunteer) with all the talking points he needed. But Obama cautioned that such talking points were really not what should be stressed with Pennsylvania voters.
Instead he urged the volunteer to tell Pennsylvania voters he encountered that Obama's campaign is about something more than programs and talking points. It was at this point that Obama began to talk about addressing the bitter feelings that many in some rural communities in Pennsylvania have about being brushed aside in the wake of the global economy. Senator Obama appeared to theorize, perhaps improvidently given the coverage this week, that some of the people in those communities take refuge in political concerns about guns, religion and immigration. But what has not so far been reported is that those statements preceded and were joined with additional observations that black youth in urban areas are told they are no longer "relevant" in the global economy and, feeling marginalized, they engage in destructive behavior. Unlike the week's commentators who have seized upon the remarks about "bitter feelings" in some depressed communities in Pennsylvania, I gleaned a different meaning from the entire answer.
First, I noted immediately how dismissive his answer had been about "talking points" and ten point programs and how he used the question to urge the future volunteer to put forward a larger message central to his campaign. That pivot, I thought, was remarkable and unique. Rather than his seizing the opportunity to recite stump-worn talking points at that time to the audience -- as I believe Senator Clinton, Senator McCain and most other more conventional (or more disciplined) politicians at such an appearance might do -- Senator Obama took a different political course in that moment, one that symbolizes important differences about his candidacy.
The response that followed sounded unscripted, in the moment, as if he were really trying to answer a question with intelligent conversation that explained more about what was going on in the Pennsylvania communities than what was germane to his political agenda. I had never heard him or any politician ever give such insightful, analytical responses. The statements were neither didactic nor contrived to convince. They were simply hypotheses (not unlike the kind made by de Tocqueville three centuries ago ) offered by an observer familiar with American communities. And that kind of thoughtfulness was quite unexpected in the middle of a political event. In my view, the way he answered the question was more important than the sociological accuracy or the cause and effect hypotheses contained in the answer. It was a moment of authenticity demonstrating informed intelligence, and the speaker's desire to have the audience join him in a deeper understanding of American politics.
There has been little or no reaction to the part of the answer that was addressed to the hopelessness of inner city youth who have been rendered "irrelevant" to the global economy. No one has seized upon those words as "talking down" to the inner city youth whose plight he was addressing. If extracted from an audio tape HuffPost Blogger Fowler, those remarks could (and may yet) be taken out of context as "Obama excuses alienation and violence by urban youth." But in context, Senator Obama's response sounded like empathetic conclusions and opinions of a keen observer: more like Margaret Mead than Machiavelli.
As the week's firestorm evolved over these remarks at which I was an accidental observer, I have reflected upon the regrettable irony that has emerged from Senator Obama's response to a friendly question: no good effort at intelligent analysis, candor -- and what I heard as an attempt to convey a profound understanding of both what people feel and why they feel it - goes unpunished. Such insights by a political candidate might otherwise be valued. In a national campaign subject to opposition research, his analytical musing has instead created an immense amount of political flak.
Now and "in this time," to invoke one of the candidate's favorite riffs, such observations and remarks shared among supporters are just a push of a record button on a tape recorder away from being spread across the internet to be dissected by political nabobs. What struck me immediately after the fundraiser as so refreshing turned out to be a moment Senator Obama is forced to regret. Today we marvel at de Tocqueville insights about American communities. Apparently, such commentary is valued as long as it is three centuries old and doesn't come from the mouth of a contemporary observer who might be elected president.
So much for the political ironies. But there is one more personal observation that was missed.
I happened to be on the balcony when Senator Obama's vehicles arrived and he emerged from the Secret Service SUV. Obama shouted the friendly greeting "How are you guys up there doing?" to the group of us looking down from the balcony and then said, "You have to excuse me, I need to call my kids in Chicago now." All of us stood and watched the leading candidate for the Democratic party nomination for president have a short conversation with his kids before he entered a fundraiser to make his remarks.
No tape of that conversation has emerged as yet. Who knows how casual remarks of a father to his children or his wife on a cell phone could be spun to support the argument that as a father speaking to his kids two time zones away before they go to bed, his comments sounded as if he "looked down" upon them. Given his relative height and the age of his kids, he probably does. But that would be precisely as relevant to his capacity to unite and lead this country as were the remarks at the fundraiser that have been so deconstructed over this past week.

Posted by: VJ | April 16, 2008 3:15 PM

Springstein's for Obama?
Doesn't cut any ice for me. I want to know who Brittany's voting for. (And Paris Hilton, too.)

Posted by: wobudong | April 16, 2008 1:47 PM

.

LATEST POLL NUMBER


Question # 11(of Democrats)

"has the better chance of getting elected president in November"

Answer:

Obama: 62%
Clinton: 31%

Washington Post ABC News Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html?hpid=topnews

.

Posted by: Washington Post | April 16, 2008 1:46 PM

4 new polls today show Obama gaining in both PA and NC. Roundup: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-polls-remain-all-over.html

Posted by: Dan | April 16, 2008 12:37 PM

Larry Sinclair is a guy who failed a lie detector test over his claim regarding Barack Obama. See http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4799.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 12:32 PM

Barak Obama ---Who is Larry Sinclair?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:55 AM

I am a PA voter (Green party but on loan to the Democrats until April 23) who is growing weary of the bickering. All 3 candidates are members of the most elite club in the nation and every 4 years we get to watch elitists pretend to be regular people while they run for Panderer in Chief.

Posted by: Joe | April 16, 2008 11:53 AM

HRC and The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away
Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the "the culture of corruption" mantra and, onto President Bush, the "I" word - impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary's latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary's current nemesis, Peter Paul - the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign - has filed a suit against her and President Clinton - among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is "for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars."

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case - except Hillary - have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

NOTE: SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are recognized in California as lawsuits that are brought against individuals, corporations or organizations in an attempt to silence defendants who speak out on matters of public concern. An anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike all claims against a defendant - in this case, Hillary herself!

Initially, Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion appeal was denied by both trial and appellate courts but then sent back to the trial court to clarify a discrepancy. But on February 3, 2006, the judge changed his original ruling. He ignored the tardiness of Hillary's original filing and agreed to allow her to argue that her 1st Amendment rights (to conduct her senatorial campaign) included her own and her husband's right to defraud her largest contributor. This action will allow Mr. Paul's lawyers to depose Hillary. [Read more about this case in Part II of this series].

As the disposition of Hillary's appeal approaches, the Clintons, their lawyers and spinners, as well as their echo chamber in what used to be the "mainstream" media - but is now known as the Old Media and even the Antique Media - are using all of their formidable resources to make sure that Hillary dodges yet another scandal.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what the leftwing media did when they tried to smear Paula Jones when she accused the Philander-in-Chief of sexual harassment. What they didn't count on, however, was that Mrs. Jones had the truth on her side and believed so fervently that justice would be served that she refused to knuckle under to their unceasing assaults.

Today, Peter Paul (http://www.hillcap.org) also refuses to be intimidated by the Clinton machine and is equally assured that justice will out. He has become yet another Clinton nemesis who won't go away.

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 16, 2008 11:17 AM


Who do you predict will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2127

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin | April 16, 2008 11:16 AM

Neat new "trending" feature from FaceBook.com just came out called, FaceBook Lexicon. Interesting article on that and the 2008 U.S. presidential election:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=95

Although Facebook is mainly (although not entirely at all) in the "young" category (18-30 year olds), it does still say something about Obama's support.

Posted by: Dave | April 16, 2008 10:21 AM

Hillary might win the popular vote, but I think Obama will win more delegates in Pennsylvania. Her recent attacks along with the help of some of the media have actually hurt her. The polls show Obama gaining and Hillary losing ground. The New York Times is still saying Obama has lost a lot of ground because of the remark about Pennsylvania. They even censure most pro Obama posts in their blogs. After losing much credibility when Scooter Libby spoon fed them intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, you'd think they'd try to revert to some sort of objectivity. I guess objective journalism is dead over there.

Posted by: Mike McNally | April 16, 2008 10:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company