Broder says North Carolina is "unimportant"
David Broder is a revered figure among political journalists. His clear-eyed appraisal of politics is something to which most of us can only aspire.
Which is why it pains me to say that in a recent column Broder wrote one of the most singularly jerky and condescending things I've read in a while:
The two states that voted on Tuesday -- Indiana and North Carolina -- are so unimportant to Democratic chances of electing the next president that it is unlikely Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make more than a token appearance in either after one of them is nominated.Unless John McCain butchers his campaign, he will be an odds-on favorite to continue the Republican winning streak in both states. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and a host of earlier candidates failed to make them competitive.
In a sensible nominating system, these states would never become important battlegrounds. Lots of people complain that Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy disproportionate influence because of their place at the start of the process. But both are closely contested in November -- not throwaways.
Indiana and North Carolina were doubly irrelevant this year, because the "issues" that Clinton and Obama discussed in the two weeks before those states' primaries were some of the phoniest of this entire election cycle.
Okay, I know what he's getting at. I understand that North Carolina isn't the most likely state to be a swing contest this fall. Although, and maybe it's just because I work here, I don't put it as far out of reach as Broder might. (Heck if Hagan is within spitting distance or of better of Dole can McCain fans really be all that comfy here?
But to say the votes of 9 million people are "unimportant" and "irrelevant" just seems hugely arrogant. Isn't it a good thing that voters who ordinarily don't have much of a say in nominating process had a chance to weigh in - regardless of whether they were "notably lacking in the kind of political prestige?" Might one reason that some state get into such voting ruts be because they're written off as wastes of time - or am I just touched in the head?
All I can say for sure is that the people I saw at Clinton and Obama rallies and meeting the candidates in smaller venues didn't feel the experience was "unimportant."
(Both Clinton and Obama, by the way, said they'd take a stab at winning North Carolina in November if they become the nominee.)