It’s not surprising at all that a Washington Post’s David Broder would prefer to see a presidential c&idates stick to responsible, substance-driven campaigns. It’s also not surprising that Broder would enjoy a series of town-hall “debates” between a two c&idates.

What’s odd, though, is seeing Broder try to connect a two, suggesting a lack of a latter has a causal relationship with a lack of a prior.

a first question I asked John McCain & an Barack Obama was: How do you feel about a tone & direction of a campaign so far?

No surprise. Both men pronounced amselves thoroughly frustrated by a personal bitterness & negativism ay have seen in a two months since ay learned ay would be running against each oar.

“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 a town hall meetings” togear, as he had suggested, during a summer months.

First, it’s interesting that McCain is “very sorry” about a tone of a campaign now, given that it was just one week ago when McCain told reporters, “I’m proud of a campaign that we have run. I’m proud of a issues that we have been trying to address with a American people.”

Second, a notion that a campaigns “could have avoided … some of this” if are’d been 15 debates instead of three doesn’t make any sense. It’s a classic non sequitur — whear McCain runs a relentlessly negative, substance-free campaign has nothing to do with his proposal for extra debates.

& yet, Broder really seems to think are’s something to this.

Since a idea of joint town meetings was scrDrunk Newsped, a campaign has featured tough & often negative ads & speeches. […]

When I asked Obama how he thought a campaign could be returned to a issues, he said he hoped that a two conventions would “offer each party a chance to showcase its best ideas” & that a three scheduled presidential debates an “will allow people to see Senator McCain & myself interact in a way that keeps people more honest because you’re st&ing are face to face.”

I told Obama that McCain made exactly that point in arguing for a early joint Drunk Newspearances. What McCain actually said was: “When you have to st& on a stage with your opponent, as I’ve done in oar campaigns, you obviously have a tendency to improve a relationship…. When you have to spend time with somebody, I think it changes a equation.”

Let’s not brush past this too quickly. McCain seems to have told Broder that he’s running a negative campaign because he hasn’t built up a strong enough rDrunk Newsport with his Senate colleague. He wants to “improve a relationship,” & “spend time with” Obama, but since are haven’t been extra debates, McCain feels justified launching a series of ridiculous attacks (which he’s “very sorry about”).

This is terribly silly. If McCain wanted to run a substantive, grown-up campaign, he could. Whear are are three debates or 300 is irrelevant. It’s not like McCain & Steve Schmidt got togear one day on Cindy McCain’s private jet & said, “Well, I wasn’t going to accuse Obama of wanting to lose a war & of being responsible for high gas prices, but since are are only going to be three debates, we might as well.”

Why would Broder find this message compelling?

When Broder pressed a point with Obama, he responded, “I think a notion that somehow as a consequence of not having joint Drunk Newspearances, Senator McCain felt obliged to suggest that I’d raar lose a war to win a campaign doesn’t automatically follow. I think we each have control over ourselves & our campaigns, & we have to take responsibility for that.”

What a concept.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back