When Broder Attacks

It's a good thing Time pays Joe Klein the big bucks since amateur bloggers couldn't deliver insights like this:

I know it's become common practice to slag David Broder in the blogosphere. But let me say this in David's defense: he is not an armchair pundit. Even now, at the age of 236, or thereabouts, he goes out and really does his homework, riding the buses and hitting the living rooms of voters in the crucial states. If you've ever wondered why people like me revere Broder, it's his work ethic--and not just his kindness, civility, judiciousness and institutional memory.
And given Broder's civility, it is really noteworthy when he hauls off and delivers a column like this about Hillary Clinton.

It is noteworthy that the mild-mannered Broder launched what is, for him, a vicious attack on Hillary Clinton. But does this, as Klein seems to think, indicate that Clinton did something seriously wrong? Clearly not. What she did was fail to ask David Petraeus questions at the Senate Armed Services hearing -- instead she gave a little speech. Considering that the subject under consideration was the deployments of tens of thousands of additional soldiers to Iraq, it's obviously the case that the seriously bad thing that happened there was either that some Senators supported this consequential decision or else that most Senators opposed it. You'd have to be a moron to think that the important thing that happened was Clinton's failure to ask questions. But Broder isn't a moron. And Broder isn't given to really attacking people. So what's going on?

Well, one might think a veteran political reporter -- author of a book on Bill Clinton no less -- might recall that Broder has a longstanding animus toward the Clinton family based, it appears, on his detrimental effect on the country club atmosphere of the Washington Establishment.

1/29/07 12:50PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Like so many clueless op-ed types, Klein doesn't understand the nature of left blogkritik: it concerns in large part (especially in Broder's case--see the Daily Howler for more on this) the content of one's published work and television pronouncements. Whether Broder works hard matters as much as whether a failing student studies hard: both miss the point of criticism to the same degree.

Posted by: jcasey on January 29, 2007 01:28 PM

I was having a conversation with a veteran journalist on the subject of the DC pundit class. He made the same distinction, between pundits who don't actually do any research beyond having conversations with "experts" and relay those conversations in columns, and those who actually walk a precinct, talk to regular voters, try to get a sense of whatever town they're covering. Apparently Broder is a very workmanlike reporter, which helps him earn the respect of his peers. Also since journalism still values "objectivity", Broder doesn't lose any points for his fetishization of bipartisanship.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot on January 29, 2007 01:30 PM

the article you linked about wrecking up the joint is about how the washington establishment didnt like clinton, and broder plainly states that this position is far out of alignment with the real world.

Posted by: mike on January 29, 2007 01:38 PM

Apparently Broder is a very workmanlike reporter, which helps him earn the respect of his peers.

Amazingly, his "workmanlike" reports from the various states always seem to end up parroting the conventional D.C. wisdom. As many have said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on January 29, 2007 01:52 PM

Hillary Clinton was given X number of minutes to question the general.

She chose to use those minutes to rebut the vile suggestion by Joe Lieberman that a resolution opposing the escalation would "undermine the troops".

Why did she choose to do that? There could be lots of reasons. Maybe she felt rebutting Lieberman's vile suggestion would be the most important use of her minutes. Could be that other senators had already asked the questions she had been planning to ask. Could be that she had already asked questions to the general when she visited Iraq the previous week.

David Broder is a member of the Sally Quinn Coctail crowd that tried to drive her husband out of town for lying about his sex life. These people don't seem to have any outrage about a president whose lies have led to the deaths of tens of thousands.

So yes, Broder et al do not like the Clintons. I suspect knows this and factored it in when she decided to run for president.

Posted by: DonB on January 29, 2007 01:52 PM

i think that the more accurate comment on broder is that he used to work hard. there is no evidence of hard work anywhere in his efforts in years.

however, we should thank klein for confirming that, in dc, once an image is ingrained, that's all that matters.

(it's the equivalent of fans voting all-stars on the basis of past reputation, except that other than gilbert, who cares who gets voted an all-star?)

Posted by: howard on January 29, 2007 01:54 PM

this position is far out of alignment with the real world.

Well so is Broder, so that makes perfect sense...(come on, it was a softball, had to take a cut at it...)

Posted by: Pooh on January 29, 2007 01:57 PM

I can see already this is going to be very painful primary. I really, really, really do not like Hillary Clinton. I don't like her transparent triangulation, I don't like her riding on her husband's coatails and celebrity-as-candidate status, and I don't like her policy views. Moreoever, I don't want her to win the primary. And yet, here I am, agreeing with Matt about Broder's animus towards the Clintons, and feeling the need to defend Hillary against Broder's attack.

Sigh. This is gonna suck.

Posted by: owenz on January 29, 2007 02:09 PM

Does anyone really believe Klein "reveres" Broder? Countering the maudlin vapidity, the treacly bathos of it all is like fighting molasses.

Posted by: brendan on January 29, 2007 02:12 PM

It's an inane column. Broder's prissy outrage is almost sad- how pathetic.. An uptight sixth grade prude would be embarrassed to write this tripe. And, why whine at Hillary? She didn't bring in a chippie to get down on all fours. This is a "civil, judicious" gent? I'm no fan of either Clinton, but Broder's just an over-the-hill, unchivalrous pantywaist coward.

Posted by: Trevor on January 29, 2007 02:14 PM

Yes instead of sitting in Washington transcribing what people tell him, Broder flies first class and stays in posh hotels in order to transcribe what people tell him. And we get the same "states are the labratories of Democracy!" column no matter what the results or the state.

Posted by: Rob on January 29, 2007 02:16 PM

David Broder is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Posted by: Joe Klein on January 29, 2007 02:22 PM

"I don't want her to win the primary. And yet, here I am, agreeing with Matt about Broder's animus towards the Clintons, and feeling the need to defend Hillary against Broder's attack. Sigh. This is gonna suck."

Well, mebbe all good progressives ought to coalesce around Johnny Edwards over the next 6 months so he can take back the WH in our name.

Otherwise, HRC it's gonna be as our nominee...

Posted by: Petey on January 29, 2007 02:23 PM

Here's betting that Richie Cohen will be sending Broder similar bouquets any day now. Out-Kleining Klein.

Posted by: Stuart Eugene Thiel on January 29, 2007 02:32 PM

"David Broder is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." (Joe Klein)

Who embarrassed himself with an inane, wrongful, petulant rant that was transparently based on an past resentment reserved for somebody else. He could be a cherub with gossamer wings and still make an old fool of himself.

Posted by: Trevor on January 29, 2007 02:38 PM

The Manchurian pundit?

Posted by: Steve on January 29, 2007 02:55 PM

My grandfather was a hardworking, honest and responsible man who happened to hate black people.

The point of this observation is that a person's positive qualities are not useful in defending that person's irrational hatreds.

When I was about 14, I made it perfectly clear to my grandfather that he was never to vent such hatred in my presence, or I would no longer make the holiday visit with my family.

Would that Klein and his cohort could show the courage or character of a 14 year old.

Posted by: mere mortal on January 29, 2007 02:58 PM

Posted by: Pooh on January 29, 2007 01:57 PM
"I really, really, really do not like Hillary Clinton. I don't like her transparent triangulation, I don't like her riding on her husband's coatails and celebrity-as-candidate status, and I don't like her policy views.... Sigh. This is gonna suck."

What a bunch of horsecrap. I really, really, really think yer a twit and please do us a favor -- don't vote. All yer transparent triangulation, after all. Hillary has cooties from Bill's coattails and she is so made up like a celebrity. Oh my gosh, how will you be able to vote this upcoming election!!!! Sigh.

If this text box was a toilet, I'd puke in it -- just for you. Oh, but gosh, thankfully it's not.

Posted by: thersitz on January 29, 2007 03:02 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773074/

"Congressional criticism of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq threatens to erode the morale of American soldiers and Marines serving there, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., implied Tuesday at a Senate confirmation hearing for Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Bush's choice to be the new commander in Iraq."

"McCain’s raising of the morale question was quickly disputed by one of his potential 2008 presidential rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton."
-------------------------
"And, Lieberman asked, Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement?"
-------------------

Broder left out this part. Two of his favorite politicians Lieberman and McCain used their minutes to suggest that those opposing the Dear Leader's escalation plan were aiding the enemy. Hillary used her minutes to rebut this despicable suggestion.

Posted by: DonB on January 29, 2007 03:07 PM

I sometimes think the only people taking Joe Klein and David Broder seriously are us.

They shouldn't even be mentioned by name anymore. It should just be "another PPP (Pundit Past his Prime) has again demonstrated how he made himself irrelevant in the reality-based world. It might have been Broder or Klein or Friedman or Kloderman or whatever. Probably all of them. In anycase, everyone drinks a shot. Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment. Or just drink a shot for tomorrow, its always the same game."

Posted by: Mysticdog on January 29, 2007 03:10 PM

The only way the Dems possibly lose in 2008 is if they nominate Hillary Clinton. And don't give me any of this Obama or Edwards nonsense. The election is Al Gore's to lose.
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: MinorRipper on January 29, 2007 03:41 PM

It's my view that anyone who berates Democrats for being old time libs in one breath and inauthentic, poll-driven triangulators in the next breath is probably a genius. It's also my view that anyone who supports the destruction of old age entitlement programs should probably write a biography of noted libertarian Woody Guthrie.

Posted by: Linus on January 29, 2007 03:43 PM

I am not really a Senator Clinton fan myself - there are many other Dems I would prefer right now, but the one thing that Clinton really does bring to the table -- and this is not insignificant - the schadenfreude factor.

David Broder, willingly or not, is adding to her one true strength.

Posted by: theCoach on January 29, 2007 03:56 PM

thersitz says: I really, really, really think yer a twit and please do us a favor -- don't vote. All yer transparent triangulation, after all. Hillary has cooties from Bill's coattails and she is so made up like a celebrity. Oh my gosh, how will you be able to vote this upcoming election!!!! Sigh.

----

Sorry for ruffling your feathers, thersitz. You must be one of those Hillary supporters I've been told exists.

What makes Hillary a good candidate? Is it her "centrist" position on Iraq, in which she justifies her vote in favor of the war while advocating more war? Is it her leadership in the face of the Bush Administration's attacks on personal freedom or the environment? Or maybe it's a leadership thing. Is she good on tv? Do her words inspire? Does she have a compelling message? Is there any one issue where she stands above the field? Is she a good candidate on any level, substantively or superficially? Is there anything, other than her husband's donors, that makes her unique, in any way, shape, or form? If so, I'd like to hear it.

She is a celebrity because she has done nothing of note beyond serving as First Lady. Thus, her name recognition comes not from her words or actions or merits, but her celebrity status. Obama, for all his flaws, at least impressed people. Who has Hillary impressed?

There is one issue and one issue alone that requires immediate, urgent leadership: Iraq. Jim Webb's speech resonated because he provided that leadership. As 2008 draws closer, the need for such leadership is going to going to grow increasingly desperate - and the best Hillary can do is say that George Bush should withdraw troops before leaving office. It is the single worst rationale for pulling troops out of an armed conflict that I have ever heard. She is perhaps the worst of the Democrats when it comes to the single issue that matters. And you think she can win the primary? Please.

Despite the urgent desires of the DLC and the DC insider class, this election will not be a coronation, any more than 2004 was a coronation. Remember who the DLC/Insiders liked heading into THAT election? Joe Lieberman. How'd he do, anyway?

Get ready to be disapointed.

Posted by: owenz on January 29, 2007 04:00 PM

Re: Sigh. This is gonna suck.

Posted by: owenz on January 29, 2007 02:09 PM

No kidding. I'm thinking about creating a support group for us ... maybe i'll call it ...

hil-haters-but-not-as-much-as-idiot-beltway-pundit-haters

aaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!

Posted by: hegemony57 on January 29, 2007 04:02 PM

"Despite the urgent desires of the DLC and the DC insider class, this election will not be a coronation, any more than 2004 was a coronation. Remember who the DLC/Insiders liked heading into THAT election? Joe Lieberman. How'd he do, anyway?

Get ready to be disapointed."

Naturally I agree with your comments. What Washington needs now is not some lib Hitler DLC type but a true outsider and man of the people like Howard Dean who never so much as thought to balance the budget of Vermont on the backs of the poor and old let alone went through with it.

Posted by: Linus on January 29, 2007 04:21 PM

Broder's obvious distaste for the Clintons has always informed his view. The Clintons wouldn't pay proper obeisance to him and his cocktail circuit poobahs in DC, so they took revenge on them. Regarding the Petraeus hearing: who in DC still believes that confirmation hearings bring out candid answers to questions? It's always a game of avoiding direct answers, unless those responses reflect well on the person responding. Certainly Broder knows this, too, but wants to use the occasion for more crap flinging.

Posted by: whack on January 29, 2007 04:21 PM

hegemony57: "Naturally I agree with your comments. What Washington needs now is not some lib Hitler DLC type but a true outsider and man of the people like Howard Dean who never so much as thought to balance the budget of Vermont on the backs of the poor and old let alone went through with it."

---

Gotta love the sarcastic false choice: you either support Hillary or you're a wacky, moonbat Dean supporter. Sadly, the winning candidate will need to be an "outsider" insofar as they must actually impress those little pesky people...what do we call them? Oh yeah, voters.

I have far less interest in debating liberal identity politics (DLC'ers vs. the Deaniacs) then looking at a candidate's positions, leadership stature, history, and political skills. I happen to believe that Hillary is propped up by a Democratic donor network created by her husband and led by Terry McCauliffe. These folks have tremendous fund raising abilities and organizational skills. They constitute a formidable election team. Unfortunately, they have themselves a bad candidate.

Posted by: owenz on January 29, 2007 04:31 PM

"Gotta love the sarcastic false choice: you either support Hillary or you're a wacky, moonbat Dean supporter."

You're right. We live in a country where the broad center of the electorate would never permit their elected representatives (including President Kucinich himself) to balance budgets on the backs of the poor and old.

Posted by: Linus on January 29, 2007 04:37 PM

Will somebody please take David Broder and shove him up Joe Klein's ass?

Thanks.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein on January 29, 2007 04:40 PM

Owenz, the only disappointment I need to prepare for is to have to listen to your species of argument for the next 2 years.

I didn't say I was a Hillary supporter, nor did I say I planned on voting for her. I responded to a post that seemed to me to be spewing a bunch of bs talking points about how the poor dems won't be able to field a winnable candidate -- a talking point that especially is aimed at Clinton, but one that I've also already seen aimed at Edwards and Obama. It is the same bs tactic used against Gore, Dean, Kerry. It is a defeatist bunch of crap and if the person who posted it feels that way, then that person should quit the scene. And yer analysis of Hillary is an extension of that very same republican/pundit directed analysis. You haven't spent the last 15 taking every form of insult imaginable and the most viscious forms of attacks levelled against you -- as she has. If she's cautious, I would assume some of her "calculated" stategy reflects that. Hillary has dissappointed me as much as you and when she backed the war I wrote her web site and told her she would never get my support in an election again. It seems to me, the only Democrats with any conviction are Feingold and Dean and a few more. Where was Webb when the war began? what were his positions? I haven't seen anything along those lines, so i don't know. If he supported the war, why doesn't your analysis apply to him as well? If I had my way, every Dem in office who supported the war and who have laid down these past seven years and let Bush trample this country would get the boot. But that's not realistic. I will be supporting the Democratic ticket, but I plan on waiting to let the campaigns make there arguments before voting -- if you don't mind. I'd stack Hillary Clinton's accomplishements and service to this country against yours and mine anyday.

Posted by: thersitz on January 29, 2007 05:24 PM

- he is not an armchair pundit.

Oh the hell he not.

That is exactly what Broder is, an armchair pundit, partisan and ugly, just like Joe Klein is, not a journlist, not interested in facts, only smear campaigns and stupid opinions. One big ass recognizing another big ass, Whoopee.

Joe Klein isn't any different than Bill O'Reilly of FOX news, never able to keep his opinions to himselve, parading about as journalist.

We should establish the Judith Miller award for armchair pundits, "access is everything, the facts are nothing" award. To bad Cheney didn't talk to Klein about Plame, nobody would care that an armchair pundit, Joe Klein went to jail. Does anyone really care what Klein thinks.

Posted by: Cheryl on January 29, 2007 05:45 PM

Regarding the Petraeus hearing: who in DC still believes that confirmation hearings bring out candid answers to questions?

This is true, but it's more specific than it needs to be. The point is, the media is accustomed to sliming Hillary, and portraying her as "cold and calculating," with respect to activities engaged in by virtually every other politician alive.

If Hillary holds a photo-op, as we saw with her announcement, the stories will all be about how scripted the event was. For politicians the media actually likes, the press is happy to let the emperor remain clothed.

The vast majority of politicians use confirmation hearings as an opportunity to speechify and bloviate - and by all accounts, Hillary's "speech" was more substantive than most - but Broder, who knows this, chooses to tee off on Hillary as though she did something unprecedented or even unusual. And readers who aren't familiar with confirmation hearings in general will no doubt read it and think that Hillary stepped out of line.

This is not unique to Hillary, by the way, insofar as we saw the same thing with respect to Gore and Kerry. You heard all about Kerry's manicures, but you never heard about the efforts to make Bush presentable. Reverse the situation and we'd have a 12-part series about Bush's speech coach trying to teach him to pronounce "nuclear." And of course, you had the unending stories about Gore's swanky fundraisers, with nary a mention of any comparable events on the other side of the aisle. When it comes to mocking Democrats, selective truth is the media's stock in trade.

Posted by: Steve on January 29, 2007 05:45 PM

oops, that should be "himself" (jeebus, me).

Does anyone find this amusing:

it's become common practice to slag David Broder in the blogosphere.

Hey, it's become common practice to slag Joe Klein in the blogosphere too. If Klein feels Broder's pain, its only because they share a mutual armchair pundit disease. And didn't Broder attack the bloggers, (those foul mouth liberal blogs) - without citing a single offender - than expect the blogs remain mute on the issue? Does Broder never read right-wing blogs are is he just a partisan right-wing armchair pundit?

Posted by: Cheryl on January 29, 2007 05:57 PM

“I want you to get rid of all these bitches he’s seeing … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control” – Hillary to Ivan Duda in 1982.

“I believe that Bill Clinton had my father killed to protect his political career.” Gary Johnson whose father, Jerry Parks, was murdered in cold blood on 9-26-93. Hillary and her boyfriend Vince Foster had hired Jerry Parks to spy on Bill for years and Jerry Parks knew a LOT about the Clintons.

“Oh, that’s good L.D., that’s good.” Bill to C.I.A. operative L.D. Brown, also Bill’s favorite state trooper, after L.D. said he was going to Mexico to kill Terry Reed. Terry Reed knew about Bill’s involvement with the C.I.A.’s contras/arms/drugs back to USA scheme of the 1980’s.

“My God, I can do it again.” – Bill to Juanita Broaddrick before he raped her for second time on April 25, 1978.

“You better put some ice on that.” – Bill to Juanita after he had raped her and referring to her upper lip that Bill had chewed on with his teeth.

“You will never believe what the motherfucker [Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!” - Hillary in 1978 referring to Bill’s rape of Juanita, as related by close advisor Larry Nichols.

“We want to thank you for everything you do for Bill,” Hillary to Juanita Broaddrick at a political event just 3 weeks after Bill had raped Juanita in 1978, as Hillary kept holding Juanita’s hand, then Hillary repeated “Everything you do for Bill.” [meaning shut up, don’t talk]

“I was very, very, very terrified” – Kathleen Willey, referring to the time Hillary’s goon approached Kathleen while she was alone walking her dogs, after her cat Bullseye had disappeared and 3 of her car tires had been nail-gunned.

“That’s too bad. Bullseye was his name wasn’t it? … You’re just not getting the message, are you?” – Hillary’s goon to Kathleen on 1-8-98 and referring to Bullseye, her pet cat of 13 years, that had Hillary’s goons had stolen.

“Is Gennifer Flowers the sort of person who would commit suicide?” – Hillary’s goon Jack Palladino to the former roommate of Gennifer.

“They looked like [Arkansas] state troopers, I’ll say that.” – Gary Johnson referring to the 3 big, beefy men with short haircuts who savagely beat and nearly murdered him on 6-26-92.

“We have to destroy her.” – Hillary referring to Gennifer Flowers.

“We have to destroy her story.” – Hillary referring to Connie Hamzy and speaking to George Stephanopolous.

“Hillary let that old man of hers call me a liar … I might be a slut and a whore. But I am no liar.” – Connie Hamzy

“If you cooperate with the media, we will destroy you.” – Walter Kyle, Clinton campaign worker, in 1992 to his sister Dolly Kyle Browning, who had an affair with Bill for decades.

“Bitches,” “Whores,” “Sluts,” “Trailer Trash” who must be “destroyed” – how Hillary refers to Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends.

"Yes, I was physically scared. We are talking about the presidency of the country here, and between the friendly calls on one hand telling me to get out of town for my own good and then talking about smear tactics on the other, I got scared. Yes, physically scared. There were always veiled threats. Always.”
- Elizabeth Ward Gracen on the harassment campaign that Hillary’s goons subjected her to in 1997.

“Marilyn Monroe got snuffed.” – from an intimidation letter sent to Sally Perdue who had an affair with Bill in 1983.

“I thought it was the coolest thing in the world that we had a governor who got high.” – Sharlene Wilson referring to Gov. Bill and his cocaine use.

“Got to get some for my brother [Bill], he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.” – Roger Clinton buying cocaine and referring to Bill.

“Sure you don’t want some of this? This is good shit. We sure do grow lotsa good things besides watermelons here in Arkansas.” – Bill to Terry Reed and who Bill was trying to talk into going to Mexico for the C.I.A. Gov. Bill was commenting on the quality of the dope.

“Go on. I’m the commander in chief here; you won’t get busted.” – Gov. Bill to Terry Reed and offering a joint.

“I wouldn’t put anything past Bill Clinton.” - Kathy Fergusen, who Bill had once pinned against the kitchen counter in the Governor’s mansion.

“It looks like someone has shot out all your tires with a nail gun; is there someone out there who does not like you?” – the mechanic of Kathleen Willey in the fall of 1997.

“Suck it,” Bill referring to his penis in 1979 and speaking to Carolyn Moffet who ran out of the room.

“Would you kiss it for me?” Bill referring to his erect penis and speaking to Paul Jones.

“Crooked and hard and gross” - Bill’s penis as described by Paula Jones to her sister Lydia Cathey.

“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Clinton aide James Carville referring to Paula Jones.

“I was sitting there crying and so upset at the time … I felt like the next person coming through the door [was coming] to get rid of [my] body. I absolutely could not believe what had happened to me.” – Juanita Broaddrick referring to the aftermath of Bill’s rape of her.

“[Bill] ministers to troubled people all the time. He’s done it dozens if not hundreds of times. He does it out of religious conviction and personal temperament.” – Hillary to Sydney Blumenthal.

“That cat, he was a nice cat. Bullseye was his name, wasn’t it?” Kathleen added, “He asked me about my children by name. He said, ‘How are your children, Shannon and Patrick?’ It was a very insidious thing and it was meant to scare me.” - Kathleen Willey referring to her experience with Hillary’s goon.

“I gotta get in Rose [Law Firm] … I’m gonna fuck [Webb] Hubbell.” – Hillary

“Larry, unless they have pictures of me with a goat, I’ll deny it.” – Bill to Larry Patterson and referring to his gargantuan philandering

“He is my friend. He will lie for me, steal for me, cheat for me, kill for me …You have to do the same to cover for me.” – Bill to Larry Patterson and referring to another state trooper

“Come on, Bill, put your dick up. You can’t fuck her here.” – Hillary to Bill at a political event.

“What the fuck do you think you’re doing? I know who that whore is. I know what she’s here for. Get her out of here.” -Hillary, in front of Bill, speaking to Larry Patterson who had brought along one of Bill’s girls to a going away ceremony in January, 1993.

“Bill owes me.” – Hillary to anyone who would listen for years.

“Goddamn it, Bill, you promised me that office.” – Hillary to Bill, on Inauguration Day, 1993, and referring to the office of Vice-President Al Gore.

Posted by: Robert Morrow on January 29, 2007 09:11 PM

well, mebbe all good progressives ought to coalesce around johnny edwards over the next 6 months so he can take back the wh in our name.

i'm slowly coming to the same conclusion.

Posted by: skippy on January 29, 2007 09:28 PM

It’s a long process. Let’s take advantage of it, and see how the candidates do under the pressures, and in the long haul.

Broder made a foolish error, which he must regret. The Hillary piece was a waste of copy, particularly under the extreme circumstances the Republic is facing.

Mr. Broder and the rest of you? The Constitution is being destroyed, as are American interests and lives. Please give a voice to the public’s interest and shine a light on the fanaticism and incompetency of this Administration. That is the purpose of the 1st Amendment. You have a duty. You can make a difference, and save lives of American troops and American interest. Get out of yourselves and the comfort of the Georgetown cocktail parties. America needs you.

Same for you Russert.

Posted by: erict on January 29, 2007 09:39 PM

By "work" do they mean "listening to GOP operatives who feed him lies and spin so he can go home and type it up"?

Posted by: bakho on January 29, 2007 10:03 PM

Are you a spammer, 'Morrow', or just an asshole? Get back to Steve Clemons' blog: it's missing its pet moron troll. (Or resume masturbating to that copy of The Clinton Files signed by Lucianne and Jonah.)

Oh, and the problem with Broder is that he's all about the surface, all about the process. That's why elite punditry loves Saint John McCain. I couldn't believe the idiot on Hardball tonight trying to claim him as a centrist; even Matthews had to disagree on that, at least with respect to Iraq.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on January 30, 2007 12:10 AM

Why do the Joe Kleins and George Wills and David Broders and others in the punditocracy think it's okay to be spectacularly wrong as long as they're really, really nice while being so?

Don't get me wrong -- everyone is human and makes mistakes. But there's no accountability with these clowns -- they still get air time and column space even though the only people who are wrong more often and still employed are Midwestern weathermen.

So how's about they just shut. the. fuq. up.

It's not that we on the left want silence or a bunch of lackies who say exactly what we want them to. We just want smarter "professional" pundits who can spend 5 minutes with teh Google.

Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Unholy Moses on January 30, 2007 09:29 AM

Thanks owenz, you nailed it 100%

Posted by: DrBB on January 30, 2007 12:17 PM

Posted by: Robert Morrow on January 29, 2007 09:11 PM

Now that was some funny shit, dude. Best laugh I've had all week. Ever consider a career in stand-up?

Posted by: Realist on January 30, 2007 05:18 PM

very good

Posted by: halkin yildizlari on August 28, 2007 10:22 AM

very nice

Posted by: oyunlar on August 28, 2007 10:22 AM

I think , İt's very nice ...