Broder: The Blogosphere Strikes Back

"that Ate links to"

Ate? It's like watching grandpa talk "hip"

I will actually take Joe's side on the issue that a hearing is the place to ask questions. Sniping at politicians for grandstanding at hearings is like shooting fish in a barrel. Which is kind of the point.

If escalation is a terrible idea, then it's a little odd to trumpet Broder's Beltway insiderism for praising McCain over Hillary. Are you really going to push a candidate who wants to spread this blunder throughout the Middle East because you've made him into such a maverick?

Even if you consider style, there is more important issues, such as McCains hypocritical vacillations about escalation, and his extreme, neo-con fantasies about the war. He is plummeting among independents because this supposed serious maverick is the only person besides Lieberman delusional, or cynical, enough to stand behind Bush, and push to break the army by putting thousands more in harm's way.

What did he ask? What did she say? Does this matter at all?

Joe, you have many, many wanker of the day awards. In fact I wish Atrios would just give you a lifetime achievement wanker awards and then get on to finding other, more interesting wankers.

"A Senate hearing is a place to ask questions, not make speeches."??? C'mon, when has anything that ever transpired in the Senate not been used to mkae speeches? I don't think that Clinton was the first Senator to grandstand during a hearing, and I somehow doubt she will be the last.

I don't like Broder for the simple reason that he was one of the leading peddlers in January 2001 of the fake "Clinton staffers trashed the White House" story, which proved to be utterly and totally false. This was an early sign of how the MSM willingly decided to basically not report critically on the Bush White House.

Broder's problem is that he equates "centrism" with "being correct" which is a false choice.

If Democrat A says "The Earth is round" and Republican B says "The Earth is flat" Broder is unable to criticize Republican B despite any and all disproving evidence to the contrary. Instead, Broder will write a 500 word pean to the four Senators who seek a "compromise" on whether or not the Earth is flat.

That's the way it is with Hillary and her critics. Ther're meanspiting ugly litte hacks with pleny o'slime to sell.

The most important line in Klein's post:

"I'm really interested in the quality of questions Hillary, and all the other candidates, will ask as President."

It's all about Joe. He's interested in the quality of questions she'll ask but Senator Clinton didn't do what Joe wanted. For that, she must be criticized.

Proof, yet again, that Kevin Baker was right:

"Far from the objectivity that he claims, Klein exists at a perfect confluence of infantalism: all politics must be directed towards meeting his personal needs and prejudices, and all politicians must constantly entertain him."

Glad to see you address the comments. Good for you. I respect that. Hope to see more of it in the future.

You write "He'll actually go door to door, or convene a group of neighbors." Who are his neighbors, though? Ben Bradlee and Cokie Roberts? I'm serious. Unless he lives somewhere other than were I think he lives, I don't see how his neighbors are anything like typical Americans.

"I don't like the Clintons, which is hilarious after 15 years of being accused, by the left and the right, of being a shill for them."

So... you don't see "Primary Colors" as a scream of barely repressed jealousy and resentment toward people you think you're smarter than?

I do.

I find watching all the pent-up rage at Klien finally finding an outlet to be fascinating. It shows exactly how frustrated we've become at the media, and how far askew the pundits have strayed from the country and reality.

And it's all coming from your supposed audience. In a media landscape overrun by the most poisonous and vile of conservative blowhards, Klien is closest thing to a non-conservative ideaologue that gets let passed the velvet ropes, God help us.

But I'm glad you allow comments because now at least you get a sense of the outrage that has built up over the gatekeepers of our discourse. The reason for the rise of the blogosphere is that there is noone in the MSM who represents us. You have the right-wing polemiscists, and the moderate milquetoasts, all serving the general purpose of marginalizing non-Republican viewpoints, and legitimizing rightwing nutiness.

Accused by the left of being a shill for them(the Clintons)?
Are there a few examples of this you can share?

Good that you noticed you're a wanker. But you missed the post by Greg Sargent at TPM which goes into more depth about exactly why:

"Yet rather than offering his opinions of the actual substantive positions these two Senators expressed on the most important issue of our time, Broder instead devotes a whole column on the hearing to blasting Hillary -- and comparing her unfavorably with McCain, to boot -- based on nothing more than a few minutes of meaningless theatrics. Come on, now. Can't we do better than this?"

JB11 you are so correct about Broder's idea of centrism. It's Lieberman, McCain.

Two people take positions, the middle ground between them is not necessarily the right answer.

It would be like the Klan wanting to lynch 5 people, and a group opposes them. In Broder's world, somebody who comes in and suggests we just lynch 2 instead is a heroic centrist. They aren't. They are pathetic.

The Clinton hatred from Broder is way outside the scope of reality either. It's personal. Not based on particular issues. It's not about his tax policies, or foreign policy, or domestic issues. Broder simply hates the Clintons personally.

Again I ask you Joe, why do the same press corpse, who swooned over JFK, who would bag anything with a pulse, get the vapors about Clinton? Broder, Quinn, Matthews, Dowd. They all loved JFK. He banged women with class or something? What exactly was it?

Newt Gingrich got caught getting a hummer from his soon to be third wife on an office desk, while married to wife #2. He gave his first wife divorce papers while she was undergoing cancer treatments. He was sued for not paying child support. You all gave maybe 5% of the attention to his problems as you did to Clinton. Why is it? Seriously, why?

I want to know more about Hillary's domestic agenda.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Joe, while I agree that a hearing is for questions and not for speeches, my agreement with you stops there. You neglect many relevant questions, and purposefully gloss over Broder's bias here. Specifically:

1. If you're so interested in the questions Presidential candidates are asking, why don't YOU delve into the questions St. McCain asked of Petraeus? Why are YOU focusing on one Democrat?
2. Why do you think Broder DID NOT delve into St. McCain's questions?
3. Why is the mere act of asking a question at a hearing (presumably) more important than the position one takes on escalation?
4. What questions would YOU like to see asked, but weren't asked (by anybody) at the hearing?
5. Do you think Broder is biased against Democrats in general, and the Clintons specifically?

When you answer these and other questions (inside the comment thread, if possible), then maybe we'll stop thinking of you as a wanker for defending Broder. Maybe.

More artful dodging. Both Klein and Broder didn't like Senator Clinton's use of her time with the general du jour? But what about what she said? Or is it just style points that you grade nowadays?

Also, since Senator Clinton has asked questions in the Senate before, maybe Klein can arrive at a judgment regarding how she asks questions from the many other times she asked questions? Or was this the only time Klein was watching?

Mr. Klein:

Look at David Broder's column from another angle -- even if Broder is all the things you say he is and more, why did he pick this particular Senator at this particular hearing to criticize for making a speech instead of asking questions?

Was it the first time he's seen it happen? Hardly. Is she the worst offender? Not by a long shot. Was this hearing the most important hearing ever in which a Senator used their time to pontificate? Again, no.

What then? What could it be? Why Hillary? Why now?

I'll be curious to hear your answer.

A couple other unrelated questions:

1. Why does only half of Joe's face appear on my browser? Is that an IE thing?

2. What happened to Jay Carney? He has been pretty quiet since he got his ass handed to him by the lefty blogosphere.

Atrios and Yglesias are irrelevant. Why get into pissing match with them?

Please use the correct idiomatic use of slag.

Verb:

"It's cool to SLAG OFF Klien."

Or

Noun:

"Joe Klien is a nasty old SLAG."

See Wank:

"Joe Klien is a WANKER"

"Joe Klien is having a WANK."

Joe Biden is infamous for speechifying at hearings. It's so bad I have to turn off the tv for a few minutes until he gets to his point. I heard that he one time went 27 minutes and no questions were asked.

Broder isn't writing columns about him though. He is a presidential candidate too.

It's about hating on the Clintons.

Joe Klein is still wrong.

Ask Patraeus questions? As if the whole enterprise in Iraq has not already been planned out by fiat?

Patraeus is a disgrace. He's allowing his civilian bosses to destroy the military. He should have resigned if he had any honour. He know she's being asked to do something he cannot acheive. He ought to resign and refuse to take a suicidal order.

Dear Joke Line,

Blow it out your ass.

Very truly yours...

I'm shocked, shicked I tell you. That no-one invoked the famous Claude Raines line from Casablanca!

Politics! In a Senate hearing? The horror! Toss out that heretic Clinton!

"Atrios and Yglesias are irrelevant. Why get into pissing match with them?" -posted above

Agreed! Why are you engaging these nutbags? You have countless readers who have actually read your books and read your columns, please talk to them and ignore these angry windbags slamming away at thier keyboards!

"ignore these angry windbags slamming away at thier keyboards!"

And with that, circular firing squad spun around faster and faster, turning into a blur, until finally nothing was left but a little puff of self-negation.

And as the little puff cloud drifted apart, some said that you could see Jay Carney's face...

That wooshing sound was a comment going straight over circular firing squad's head...

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Hilary Clinton, but that article was just silly.

It seems that Broder's big objection is that Senator Clinton gives "the impression that she thought she had all the answers..."

What Hollaboo said. Atrios is a mewling little pissant who thinks pages of lame one-liners constitutes a blog.

Mr Klein,

If you cared about civility you would be writing columnists denouncing St John McCain and Holy Joe Lieberman for suggesting during the hearing that those opposed to the escalation were undermining the troops.

Instead you and your ilk denounce Mrs Clinton for rebutting your Beltway darlings McCain and Lieberman.

Why do Beltway pundits portray McCain/Lieberman as "civil", "voice of reason" even when they smear the opposition as unpatriotic?

Joe,

"No, what I most like about Broder as a reporter is that he has taken pains over the years to talk at length with the sort of people who don't go to protests, and even to folks who don't go to political meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Talking at length isn't necessarily a conversation or listening. Are you listening? Joe? Joe?

That is a fine glass structure you inhabit, Mr. Klein.

Atrios and Yglesias are irrelevant. Why get into pissing match with them?

Atrios alone has more readers than the published edition of Time.

And certainly vastly more readers than this idiotic blog.

Notice how all the comments show single digits until linked to by Atrios? Now you know why Joke keeps bringing him up.

Sorry, the line "Atrios and Yglesias are irrelevant. Why get into pissing match with them?" should have quotes.

Most blog comments sections allow HTML formatting, guys. Get with it.

"I'm so pleased to have received the coveted wanker of the day award from Atrios, whose civility knows no bounds."

Ah, worshipping again at the Altar of Civility. You know that's a False Idol, and those piss off God.

"Atrios is a mewling little pissant who thinks pages of lame one-liners constitutes a blog."

I'd love to see your blog.

"I'm really interested in the quality of questions Hillary, and all the other candidates, will ask as President."

Funny, I don't remember Joe Klein or any other DC pundit being interested in this in 2000.

They were all interested in figuring out which candidate they wanted to have a beer with.

If Bush could put together a sentence all by himself Broder, Klein and friends all yelled ATTABOY! Talk about bigotry of low expectations.

Broder and Klein now want to raise the qualifications bar for Hillary higher, much higher.

"I'd love to see your blog."

Big words from a guy who doesn't even have a blog!

I have yet to find out what meaningful question Hillary Clinton neglected to ask.

You should be the last person with queries about the Clintons, Joe. I thought you wrote a book or two about them because you had answers rather than amnesia or inability to think about them.

I'm starting to think that Kevin Baker critique may have a point. I think you're one of those people who ascribes their career and rise in the world to superior cleverness, but then the likes of the Clintons surpass you and it's a refutation of your vanity and selfexplanation that you will always agonize about. (I've seen it a lot among my colleagues, so it's not news.) And we the readers suffer the voyeuristic screeds that your editors are not wise enough to suppress.

Your dogmatic faith in the virtue of "asking questions" is culturally narrow. It's a virtue of my Jewish students that they take responsibility for extending dialogue when they have not understood something in class. But the method of 'pilpul' does not create information where there is none available but needed, and rarely does it take the questioner who starts with a question on the wrong plane in the wrong terms to the right terms on the higher plane in which the logic of the subject is easily grasped.

In politics and difficult negotiations the wise do not raise questions to which the answer is irrelevant to the situation or already known, or amounts to opening a door for pent up idiocy to enter. I wish I could see such an awareness in your writings.

"You have countless readers who have actually read your books and read your columns"

This place is hilarious. Has Phoebe Cates posted yet?

"Big words from a guy who doesn't even have a blog!"

[sobs]

NTodd:
"Big words from a guy who doesn't even have a blog!"
[sobs]

That was low of him. Here, have a picture of a cat on a bicycle.

http://www.clever-radfahren.de/kompakt/dl/images/cat-on-bicycle.jpg

After David Broder's slimy piece on the speculation about the frequncy of Clinton's sex related program activities, any journalist or pundit who takes Mr. Broder seriously does so at the risk of losing his own credibility.

Your defense of Broder brings you down a couple of notches in this reader's view.

trifecta,

"Newt Gingrich got caught getting a hummer from his soon to be third wife on an office desk, while married to wife #2."

Forget Newt. He is yesterday's news.

Look at the fawning press coverage of Rudy Guilliani "America's Mayor". He is a serial adulterer, on his 3rd wife. Does David Broder care? Does Chris Matthews care? No, of course not. They are practically Rudy groupies.

it's a brilliant strategy, and i see it now, joe. keep pissing off bloggers with large audiences, and thus guarantee enough comments to make people believe that you're in the same league, reader wise. nice. at least you're finally getting something out of being one of the most awarded 'wanker of the day' writers in the MSM, as opposed to merely dwindling numbers of dead tree readers.

Looks like somebody's jealous of Jay Carney's comment total.

contrast and compare. keep it up though, swamp creatures. eventually you'll have half the reach of one guy in an apartment in philly with no resources to speak of.

Joe, good work. You and Broder are Hillary's best friends.

Hillary, like her husband, will garner support not for her positions, but for who her enemies are.

Hacks like you and Broder have no idea how much you're loathed and despised outside the beltway and your little cocktail party circuit, and how much your nitpicking of Hillary makes her stronger.

http://www.alexaholic.com/time-blog.com+atrios.blogspot.com+dailykos.com+tpmcafe.com

and how about turning on basic html in the comments? some of us know how to use it.

Joe Klein is the Marvin Hamlisch of political commentators.

Ya' know, there should be some sort of practice internet -- and internet with training wheels on it - where folks like Joke Line and Jay Carney can try out their chops before they attempt a post on the real thing.

This is effing brutal.

"That was low of him. Here, have a picture of a cat on a bicycle."

Shit, I gotta teach my cats how to do that. And then I can take pictures and post them...if I had a blog.

Wonder if Ana Marie will ever notice me...?

If you were a little smaller, I could rock you to sleep.

" from Atrios, whose civility knows no bounds."

I think what you're missing here, Joey, is that a lot of us in the blogosphere--Atrios among us I think--do not value 'civility' over honesty and some mythic ideal of "centrism" over reality. That's why Broder has become increasingly irrelevant, and increasingly pathetic, in his fawning praise for torture-boosters and war-mongers like McCain and Lieberman.

"Looks like somebody's jealous of Jay Carney's comment total."

8 inches. Cut.

How were the hors d'oeuvres at the National Review "summit" this weekend, Joe?

Jim is very uncivil.

Pssst. Joe. Give NTodd a quarter and he's yours.

Trust me on this.

"How were the hors d'oeuvres at the National Review "summit" this weekend, Joe?"

If there are any leftover cocktail weenies, would it kill the Swampsters to put out some snacks?

Apprentice to Darth Holden,

"Hillary, like her husband, will garner support not for her positions, but for who her enemies are."

You might be right.

I kinda like Edwards and Gore but after reading attacks on Hillary from repulsive characters like Marty Peretz and David Broder I am warming up to her.

I am sometimes vituperative and foul-mouthed, too. But it's Monday and I'm draggin' a little.

Holden is my best marketer. And customer.

I'm not just the founder of the Hair Club for Palm, I'm a member!

"How were the hors d'oeuvres at the National Review "summit" this weekend, Joe?" -watertiger

If there are any leftover cocktail weenies, would it kill the Swampsters to put out some snacks? -NTodd

Now who's being silly? You think K-LO would let Klein near the weenies? much less leave any left overs?

Real journalist to Joke Line: piss off:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/01/post_23.php

Vituperative? That sounds French.

PS--If I'm expected to troll this godforsaken "weblog", the comment engine really needs to be able to remember my freaking ID info. Jumping Jesus on pogostick of absolute lameness--come on and join the rest of us in the 1990s.

"If there are any leftover cocktail weenies, would it kill the Swampsters to put out some snacks?"

Considering how us uncivil types are driving up your stats and all...

"Jumping Jesus on pogostick of absolute lameness--come on and join the rest of us in the 1990s."

Hey, as long as the ad department gets the numbers, the Fetid Water dwellers could give a shit...

I could go for some vituperative snacks right about now. And maybe a foot massage.

Karen's lost in Iowa, see. You know what that means? A three way split of the cocktail weenies.

Jumping Jesus on pogostick of absolute lameness--come on and join the rest of us in the 1990s.

As I said, they really need an internet with training wheels for this gig.

"Wonder if Ana Marie will ever notice me...?"

You know how to get her attention... present!

Joe,

Atrios's lack of civility is just the tip of the iceberg. For more details, meet me at CityZen this Friday at two. I'll be carrying a copy of "Primary Colors."

I have some dirt on NTodd, too.

Did someone say "three-way"?

Oh geeezzz... They let NTodd in here...

Jay Carney said he be in the middle, but he fell off the right side...

Why does Joe Klein keep ignoring me?

"Why does Joe Klein keep ignoring me?

Posted by: Draco"

Oh sweet jesus my metameter just broke!

"I have some dirt on NTodd, too."

I was young and needed the money.

Also, I'm really curious as to what Joe Klein thinks "institutional memory" means.

I'll take my answer off the air.

I sure started a firestorm, didn't I?

Okay, I'm late to the party, but for the record, Joe Klein is a charter member of the (proposed) Wanker of the Day Hall of Fame: http://flprogressive.blogspot.com/2007/01/wanker-of-day-hall-of-fame.html

Would you believe Broder has only been Wanker of the Day twice (8/31/06 and 1/18/07). Klein tops him sixfold.

The planet is moving through the constellation of Uranus. Joe. That always pisses everybody off.

"...Clinton's embarrassing self-indulgence, which harmed the rest of us not at all..."

TELL IT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE USS COLE, MORON.

AFRICAN EMBASSIES SEND THEIR LOVE TOO.

AND WTC I.

AND KHOBAR TOWERS.

AND RWANDA.

AND WACO.

AND SOUTH BEACH.

Oh my yes Joe, Clinton legacy well done!

Y'know, civility is good, and all, but it's not the only virtue under the sun.

I submit to you, Mr. Klein, that the reason that the blogosphere has greatly different views from you on civility is that we tend to be younger, and remember no GOP but the GOP of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, et al.

I don't doubt that, say, Mike Mansfield was a lovely man with whom Democrats justifiably loved to compromise. But that's NOT WHAT WE'RE FACING TODAY.

We have a GOP that gives a fond hearing to radical and unpopular ideas-- replacing Social Security, engaging in a democracy jihad, eliminating environmental laws, banning all abortions, ignoring the Eighth and Fourth Amendments, accusing those who express doubt about the efficacy of our foreign policy as "emboldening the enemy," etc.

Their message machine was until recently led by Frank Luntz, a man who literally tried to REDEFINE "ORWELLIAN" AS A POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE. I mean, life just keeps on imitating satire with these guys.

The Democrats are a much, much less radical, more moderate party. This is not an eternal principle; it's just how things happen to be right now.

So we're faced with a radical right wing party and a centrist party. In that context, people like you and David Broder who preach comity, comity uber alles are MISSING THE POINT.

People like Atrios are mad at you not because they hate moms, apple pies, civility, puppies, and baseball, but because your "snark at both their houses" style, hatched in an earlier, less extreme era, DOES NOT DESCRIBE WASHINGTON, DC IN THE YEAR 2007.

By treating Frank Luntz and Peter Beinart as the two opposite poles of Respectable Opinion, you are (1) way outside the mainstream of what most Americans think and (2) enabling the consistently wrong, counterproductive, and amoral views of the Bill Kristols of the world.

"Oh geeezzz... They let NTodd in here..."

They did? Shit, I'm outta here. That guy's an ass...

"The planet is moving through the constellation of Uranus. Joe. That always pisses everybody off.

Posted by: Ô¿Ô"

That's not funny, you cocksucker.

Joe Klein does lordosis better than anyone.

Thank god David Broder had the courage to point out that only John McCain didn't do any grandstanding, but asked Gen. Petraeus really significant military/strategic questions, like this:

“Suppose that we send additional troops and we tell those troops, ‘we support you, but we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission… we do not support the mission we are sending you on’? What effect does that have on morale of the troops?”

Now that's a great question! Obviously, our enemies and our soliders are very worried about the Senate's non-binding resolution!

I'm so glad patriots like Broder are able to put people like Hillary Clinton in their place (and it's not her place, it's Broder's place) and remind us the selfless, non-partisan heroes like John McCain.

This is what I wrote over at that awful Atrios place earlier:

'The sensibilities of these people is beyond my understanding. They regularly write respectful, even enthusiastic, praise for the murderers, thieves, and liars who run this town. Lately it seems that all their criticisms are reserved for a handful of Democrats, with the Clintoris, the Clenis, and history's greatest monster, Jimmy Carter, near the head of the list.'

"Oh my yes Joe, Clinton legacy well done!"

Oh, you really do NOT want to get into a scoring match...

Sen. Dirksen, I meant, not Mike Mansfield. Whoops.

"Joe Klein does lordosis better than anyone."

Is that halitosis of the ass?

Let's accept the premise that Hillary is a political windbag who used a Senate hearing partially as a photo op. The truth is the good general was going to be confirmed unless he got a blow job during the hearing caught on camera. The Hillary story was a great Style section story.
What I am truly incensed about is the News story that went under-reported. Joe Lieberman suggested that anyone who goes counter to GW's wishes in Iraq is undermining the troops. This is a recurrent GOP theme. During a daily WH press conference with Tony Snow, David Gregory of NBC posed the question: "What contitues a valid form of dissent regarding the war in Iraq?". Mr Snow offered no answer.
Why is a Style section question about Presidential candidate Clinton more important than a News question asking why a US Senator is suggesting that dissent against the Iraq war is unAmerican.
You and your drinking buddy David Broder are letting substance slip through your hands while searching for style points.
If the President and Senators Lieberman and McCain believe that dissent is not possible, than Sen Clinton's "grandstanding" is a non-issue. We have a Constitutional question that needs to be addressed by three people i positions of power. These three gentleman need to state in detail what they believe is, or isn't, allowed when discussing the war.
You both missed the BIG story. HRC was NOT the big enemy of Democracy in the room. You blew it. David Broder blew it. You probably don't have a clue what a number of people on this website are talking about because you are so busy providing cover for Broder that you can't see what's really going on.
Your distractions provide excellent writing style points(HRC is showboating; Atrios is uncivil) over substance (There is no way to dissent without undermining the troops!).
For many people, DC reporters have become ineffective. Judith Miller, Bob Woodward, and a DC press corps that remained silent while a GOP shill was given WH press credentials to lob softball questions all represent failures of the press to be a watchdog for us. The media is increasingly viewed as a funnel for WH and GOP spin. (see recent articles regarding VP Cheney and NBC's Tim Russert). Stop your Clinton style obsession. Realize that Atrios does not represent most bloggers who disagree with the war or Mr Broder's columns. You cannot use Atrios as a reason for not posing the true NEWS question: "What do GW, Lieberman and McCain view as valid forms of dissent"? Ask them to be specific". Don't be bamboozled by their flamboyant styles. Come back with substance.

QUESTION HILLARY?

Let's waterboard her!

Question Hillary, nice list of Republican Congress screwups, thanks.

QUESTION HILLARY?

What a nut.

Joe, it would be nice if you could do something about slowing down the fast-moving train that's headed for Iran. I mean, if you really want to do something constructive, you might try that.

>He'll actually go door to door, or convene a group of neighbors, to find out what's important to them.

Do any of these focus groups include the 70% of Americans opposing the current American occupation of Iraq?

By the way, does Jay plan on writing for Swampland any more, or are you taking up his slack on amusing the Atriots?

"Joe, it would be nice if you could do something about slowing down the fast-moving train that's headed for Iran. I mean, if you really want to do something constructive, you might try that."

Oh, I'm sure he'll do that just as he did with Iraq. Wring his hands, make a few milquetoast statements that can cover his ass, pronounce that it's inevitable so there's nothing we can do, and in the 5th year of the war claim that he was totally against it and that the dirty fucking hippies should be ashamed of themselves for being right.

[wonders if this comment will be deleted]

Waterboarding? Now that's irony.

Hillary in South Beach?!?

The horror!

Why is it that the Kleins, Broders and Wills of the pundit class favor some mythical notion of "civility" over the reality of factual evidence?

Are they just pissed that a group of mommy's-basement-dwelling Cheetoh hounds are getting more things right? (For the record, it's my basement and I prefer cashews.)

Is it because a site like Atrios' gets more hits in a day then the dead-tree version of Time has subscribers?

Does the occasional profanity give you the vapors (which is funny since you have Ms. Buttfucking as a blogger here)?

Or are your egos so stunningly fragile that you have to find some way to keep yourselves on a higher perch than us lowly amateurs?

Seriously .. what is it?*

*Note: I realize that none of the authors here actually bother to answer questions posed in their comments sections. I guess that would be uncivilized … or something.

Let me get this straight. Broder wrote a non-substantive column about political theater, which you defend and then turn around and accuse Atrios of being non-substantive when he calls you a wanker?

When Atrios does it it's slime, and when Broder does it it's punditry, I guess.

"I prefer cashews."

I'll be right over. The snacks here suck. Same at Atrios'.

BTW, thanks and hats off for engaging your critics, Joe.

There's a lot of pent-up irritation at what's widely perceived to be the insularity of the DC pundit class.

Engaging in this back and forth will hopefully increase understanding on both sides, and even increase Time's circulation, if it could be as open to opinion-writers who were right about the war as it is to people who were wrong.

"Seriously .. what is it?*"

Elitism.

"A Senate hearing is a place to ask questions, not make speeches. "

I agree but, like holding in football, you could call this on every single play. The fact that you and Broder chose to single out Hillary is what is offensive to so many. Different standards for Dems, especially if they are named Clinton. I don't know why I keep expecting better from you people...

Funny how the Beltway Blowhards didn't seem to be all that concerned about civility when Rush Limbaugh was insinuating that President Clinton and/or Hillary had Vince Foster murdered. Nor did they seem all that concerned about civility when one of the most powerful Congressional Republicans, Dan Burton, called President Clinton a "scumbag." Nor did they seem all that concerned about civility when George W. Bush -- a mere 3 weeks after promising to bring civility back to Washington -- refused to apologize for calling a reporter a "major-league a__hole."

Just off the top of my head, I could probably come up with dozens, maybe even hundreds of examples of Republican incivility that was (and still is) ignored by the Beltway Blowhards. Heck, Ann Coulter can even advocate the mass murder of journalists, and it doesn't even rate a tsk-tsk from the corrupt punditocracy.

You know, there's only one thing worse than a dishonest right-wing pundit: an I'm-not-a-liberal-but-I-play-one-in-the-corporate-media pundit.

It's unfortunate that noone in the pundit class seemed interested in whether George Bush wanted to attack during his campaign in 2000. That would have been a great question. And an even better question when he ran again would have been "Why didn't you mention your intention to to disarm Saddam in 2000?"

Why were these questions never asked?

I'm really interested in the quality of questions Hillary, and all the other candidates, will ask as President.

Well I'm glad that's cleared up; we desperately need intelligent analysis of the question-quality capabilities of two people who have a slight chance of taking office in two years.

But, you know, maybe a little focus on what the implications of the hearing are for the country right now might be worth a passing acknowledgment. If that's too much trouble, I understand. I also enjoy reading about why Hillary's use of Listerine could spell trouble in the primaries.

The entrenched culture of the polite, enabling, avoidance questioners.
Mom and Dad are awakened by something going bump, bump in the night. "oh, john's home," mumbles Mom. "yaa," mumbles Dad as a muffled but distinct sounds of retching can be heard. "do you think somethings wrong?" Dad goes to the hall and returns, "his lights off, let him sleep".

The alarm goes off and mom says, "maybe you should talk to john." "yea, that was late for the school night". Cut to the kitchen where mom, noticing 'odors', lights a candle and sacks up the garbage while dad looking at John whose on his third glass of juice, "You look tired son, you shouldn't stay out that late during the week." Dad feeling like he had done his thing, left. Backing out of the driveway dad noticed a fast food cup left in his son's car's cup holder with the cans on the floor out of sight. Dad makes a note to remind John to clean out his car, teaching him the 'work ethic'.

Joe Klein and David Broder, stick a fork in them, they're done.

It's kind of fascinating actually, the end of modern punditry, given birth by Walter Lippmann.

The internets and the comments section has ended it, AMC and perhaps Anne Kornblut were the last ones through the door.

The resentment is understandable, some time a long time ago, Joe Klein and David Broder took considerable personal risks by (probably) moving to a new and forbidding city, working hard, and finally getting to the point where they are well renumerated for their opinions.

It's probably pretty annoying that 'bloggers' who did not take this traditional (more risky?) path are now beginning to have voices of equal volume, and often opinions that are far more educated, subtle and trenchant.

But, you you're my brother Charlie, you were supposed to protect me.

Actually, I do want to say that Swampland is the most open, by far, of the comments sections, and the ire will calm down over time. You're just seeing some well deserved pent-up rage. Some venting is long overdue. But we need, and Time needs, the back-and-forth. The same sort of thing happened at CBS Public Eye, where I'm a regular griper, but the dialogue was good, I thought.

The bubble has been pierced, and it's good that Klien knows what people really think. I was starting to think they never read an e-mail in their lives... it was the only way I could explain the cluelessness. Then I thought maybe it was just arrogance, and they dismissed the opinions of the plebes out of hand. Now I think it's both, but correctable, so long as they allow an open dialogue -- the more open, the better.

It's ain't yer night kid.

"TELL IT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE USS COLE, MORON."

No, I understand how the Cole was Clinton's fault, and even WTC 1, even though he had only been President for a month and a week... clearly, Jimmy Carter had a hand in that too.

I am not clear on how the Clintons were involved in the 2006 TV series produced by Jennifer Lopez, however. Pray, enlighten me.

Also--while none of the regular posters here are to blame--maybe whichever high-ranking Time genius who thought that Bill "Popsociology" Kristol needed another public platform could come by here and explain that decision. I'm sure that particular Luminary would be received with great civility, rhetorical sweets and rosepetals, to borrow a phrase....

Man makes Klein look like Mencken, fercrissake.

Joke Line,

I can't believe they pay you for this shit.

Love,
Chris

"Now I think it's both, but correctable, so long as they allow an open dialogue -- the more open, the better."

Exactly.

This is a democracy, after all (although I wonder what its definition really is in the present climate).

"Joe, it would be nice if you could do something about slowing down the fast-moving train that's headed for Iran."

When will Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan and their ilk be traveling to Tehran to offer themselves up as Ahmadinejad's human shields? Where is Ramsey Clark?

Hey Joe, who in DC do you think has cooties? Enquiring minds are dying to know.

"When will Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan and their ilk be traveling to Tehran to offer themselves up as Ahmadinejad's human shields? Where is Ramsey Clark?"

eastbaywatch,
what happened to throwing in Micheal Moore?
Dipshit.

Yo, EastHasselhof.
I realize you don't deal in facts, but Saddam's been dead for a month, and he was in jail for two years before that. You may have noticed things haven't gotten much better in Iraq. This isn't about the boogeymen Dick Cheney told you are hiding under your urine-soaked bed.

Bareback cootie riding, with Sully. It's replaced foxhunting, polo and other sweaty endeavors with the swells.

"what happened to throwing in Micheal Moore?"

I didn't think Michael Moore's fat ass could fit in a plane seat.

" I didn't think Michael Moore's fat ass..."

I've never noticed his backside.
Do you find that you spend a lot of time thinking along those lines eastbay?

Mr Klein:

It is pretty tough to take David Broder seriously when he has shown such consistent animosity to the Clintons. His self-righetousness is obvious. I have seen Republicans such as Orrin Hatch ask the sillest questions of Republican appointees and never a bad word from Mr Broder.

He is the quintessential Washington type: from the boondocks, but now solidly esconced in the centre of power and deluded by the notion that because his peers(not a very intelligent lot) call him the Dean of the WPC he is free to pronounce judgement.

i encourage Sen Clinton to say to Mr broder and those of his ilk: get a life you stupid purveyors of conventional unwisdom. Your days are numbered. the blogosphere has exposed you for the hypocrites you are. Your record on the Bush administration speaks for itself. They rolled you guys. Nuff said

Mr. Klein,

Can you clear up a question I have for me?

Why does the Beltway media get so worked up about civility is some blogger calls one of you a name on the other hand, but on the other hand:

Ann Coulter talks about murdering a president and multiple Supreme Court justices, she's considered "funny;"

Rush Limbaugh engages in racism, gets arrested multiple times, and demands a violent revolution against the government shortly before the OK City terrorist attacks;

Dinesh D'Souza writes that he understands where Bin Laden is coming from;

The Moonie owned Insight gets caught making up stories from whole cloth;

Fox News repeats those made up stories with no apology;

Robert Novak gets caught planting right-wing propaganda multiple times under the guise of "reporting;"

The Weekly Standard prints multiple stories that turn out to be planted propaganda from the Vice Presidents office;

The Drudge Report gets caught false stories with a right-wing agenda multiple times;

Why, after all that, do all those listed (and plenty more that I won't list for brevity's sake), continue to be treated as respectable news organizations and opinion makers by the beltway media? I mean, all of that seems so much more uncivil to me. It seems, to be honest, to be downright outside the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

I eagerly await your answer.

But Broder's not obsessed with the Clintons.

The Shadow of a Marriage
Thursday, May 25, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402436.html

"But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.

The article, by Patrick Healy, was anything but unsympathetic. It touched only lightly on the former president's friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach. It documented that despite their busy separate schedules, the Clintons had managed to spend two-thirds of their weekends together during the past 18 months.

But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president."

I have absolutely no respect for the punditocracy. They are shallow, conceited and a mutually self-reinforcing club of purveyors of trite observations. They have been cowed by the Republican right and have absolutely no balls. When they really take on Bush and Cheney I will read them with interest. Until then I would strongly advise Sen Clinton to give them the finger.

the mistake the Democrats make is to be polite to this hypocritical lot. I would strongly advise Sen Clinto to give these guys the finger. they deserve it.

Hmmm...just off the top of my head, I recall listening to many, many substantive questions during Iran-Contra, when Democrats and Republicans alike probed the witnes...ah who am I kidding? They were speechifying to beat the band.

Florida,
Bob Novak started out as a shill for McCarthy back in the 50's. He sold people out to McCarthy's committee.

Oh, Joe. Just look at the mess you made.

You had a good post about the Libby trial last week, and the blogospere patted you on the head for it. You seemed to appreciate it.

On the same day, Karen Tumulty appeared to halfway respond to readers (albeit with a silly answer), Carneybarker was kept away from the keyboard, and all of a sudden, things were looking up at Swampland. Maybe you f'ing idiots would be able to make a go of this after all.

But now this. No updates, no further posting to clarify, no further interaction with your adoring fans. You're going to have to start over, Joe. (sigh).

"I'm really interested in the quality of questions Hillary, and all the other candidates, will ask as President."

Yes, yes. I see your point.
I was going to say something similar about Broder.

I'm really much more interested in hearing him -- or any other widely diseeminated pundit -- ask good questions about politicians' stands on the important issues of the day like Iraq.

I'm far less interested in hearing him -- or any other pundit -- whine about whether or not Hillary used a congressional hearing as an opportunity to make a political speech. If Broder wrote a column every time a member of Congress used a hearing as an opportunity to make a speech, he'd get a lot of columns written but he wouldn't have time to write anything else.

"A Senate hearing is the perfect place to demonstrate she has perhaps the most essential skills a President can have--intellectual curiosity and the ability to ask the right questions."
----------------------------

Jeez, Joe. I've been wondering the same damned thing about the Republicans for the past 5-6 years.

Do you and Broder just get your kicks smacking around the ladies?

Why weren't you this tough on the Republican males who rubber stamped this fiasco in Iraq?

This just in from Airhead Jazeera...

"Time-Warner announced today that through at least October 2008 they will be known as and respond only to the business name CLINTON RETRO-LEGACY INC.

CEO and chief wank washer Buggs Plugg stated that "in light of the impending unilateral surrender by Clinton and Boxer to Osama and Ajamijehwahabbiewankenobi, we feel our readers will benefit from our over 60 years of Monday morning QBing, whining, French licking, and generally gay blade perspective, by and for world pieces."

The future former Time-Warner stock was expected to drop sharply with the start of Tuesday trading.

Flem at 11...

"Bob Novak started out as a shill for McCarthy back in the 50's. He sold people out to McCarthy's committee."

And here I thought he just got started with the "Acid, Amnesty, & Abortion" line of BS. You learn something new every day.

"Do you and Broder just get your kicks smacking around the ladies?"

When did Joe Klein stop beating his wife?

Libby worked to out a CIA agent as revenge for his boss Cheney.
the AG isn't sure what the limitations of Presidential power could be. WH Press Secratary Tony Snow is unable present his boss' idea of what the proper form of dissent against the war might be. But let's remain civil.
Let's keep our eye on the ball by watching Hillary's style. When i lokked up "worthless" in the dictionary, There was a picture of the DC Press Corps. David Broder was in front. You were standing next to him
I'm sorry..... that was uncivil. Please forgive me, but could you two keep your eyes on the ball. The WH uses MSM as a microphone. You are going along too willingly.

For the past 6 years Republicans have not held any meaningful hearings...let alone asked the necessary questions. And Broder and Klein have??? Held their feet to the fire? Written lots of columns bemoaning this fact? No? Wow, really? Glad that now that Dems are in power you all are READY TO RUMBLE AGAIN.

The WH uses MSM as a microphone.
Posted by: rmrd0000 | January 29, 2007
--------------------------

More like a megaphone.

Then the MSM, Joe included, whine when the blogosphere calls them out on it.

But they'll bend over backwards to convince the Dittoheads they don't have a "liberal" bias - ala, smackdown Hillary for making a political speech the week she announces her candidacy.

The D.C. punditry have been talking about her candidacy for the past 2 years. Now she's not permitted to talk about it?

Give me a freakin' break, Joe.

It's this type of blatant hypocrisy that makes us liberal bloggers so "mean".

Besides, when are YOU going to ask tough questions of the General? Or the President? Or the Vice President?

When are you or Broder going to write about Wolf Blitzer's embarrassing performance with the Vice President last week?

Since when is it out of line for a reporter to ask a man to defend his daughter against the attacks from his own political base?

One can only hope the Fourth Estate would be half the man Hillary is.

It occurs to me that all the leftie fanboys who whine about Fox News never actually watch Fox News, and thus have no idea what they're whining about.

At least the "right wing MSM" that you hear leftie fanboys moaning about doesn't have to actually manufacture fake National Guard memos in a naked attempt to smear a sitting pres.

JoyousMN... don't forget the civil meme.

When the Republicans were screwing with the rules in the house, bribing people on the floor, cutting off microphones at hearings, not allowing amendments, we did not hear the gnashing of teeth that they needed to be bipartisan.

The second the democrats one, high broderism kicked in and demanded that the democrats be nice to the republicans.

Same thing happened when W took over. Remember, we were supposed to have a new tone. No more Vince Foster murders, Hillary a lesbian, Bill Clinton and black hookers, Clinton murdering Ron Brown, Clinton doing drug deals in Mena, Arkansas.

We were now to be civil to W.

Why the f is this? Why aren't they ever screaming at the Republicans to knock it off? Instead, they tell us to not even start. That's really fair and balanced, in a Fox News kind of way.

"It occurs to me that all the leftie fanboys who whine about Fox News never actually watch Fox News, and thus have no idea what they're whining about."

Oddly, you'd be wrong. It occurs to me that's not infrequent for you.

Oh, and you might not have heard of something called the intertubes. Look into it. Turns out you can get video and transcripts and stuff "online." Strange, but true.

"smear a sitting pres."

"Smear"? Drunken frat boy didn't have Daddy pull strings to keep his candy ass out of combat? The "fake memo" related to exactly one detail in the whole story: Dumbya's physical. You're not actually going to pretend he didn't go AWOL? If you have any evidence that he reported for duty, Gary Trudeau has a ten thousand dollar check for you.

""Smear"? Drunken frat boy didn't have Daddy pull strings to keep his candy ass..."

Dreck, from a loony liberal loser.

It occurs to me that liberalism is a sanctuary for those picked on/ignored through their formative years to finally open up and lash out at their oppressors, usually with the sort of lispy, gossipy flourish you're likely to find in a small town knitting club.

Well, oddly, when I think "wanker" the first person I think of is, well, Joe Klein.

I know that Atrios's wankers are really just a specialized subset of all wankers but if, say, Erin McKean decided to make wanker the word of the year, I'm thinking Joe Klein will be the definition. Freidman Units and Satorium have passed into common usage so I guess there's no reason that Joe Klein can't be the dictionary definition of someone who, um, defines politics as personal pleasure, to use, um, civil terms.