Rough Start

Posted by Matthew S.J. Mezger
January 29, 2007

In that period, she and her deputy, Ira Magaziner, two of the smartest policy wonks in captivity, were also supremely self-confident -- and in some eyes, arrogant.

Which "period" was that, Dave? I don't want him in my living room telling menstration joke. If that armchair crack is aimed at me because of my disabilities, you're invited to back it up anytime, Joe.

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad
January 29, 2007

Mr. Klein,
Exactly what "little people" does Broder talk to? The scorn that is heaped upon him by the blogosphere is warranted most of the time. Do you read his columns? Or do you let a friendship get in the way of objectivity? Did Broder get out there and talk to any of the marchers in the anti-war protest? Face it, when MSM outlets take stuff from places like Insight magazine without checking it out first, the media deserves all the scorn that is heaped upon it. The fourth estate has failed this country and until you and your breathren figure that out and redeem yourself, you'll be afterthoughts.

Posted by Andy Vance
January 29, 2007

I think that's a valid critique. The problem comes when Broder uses McCain as the benchmark of "seriousness." That's deeply silly.

Posted by Steve in Sacto
January 29, 2007

Ah yes, Broder's "civility." You mean like when he said this about Clinton:

"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

Adding...if fluffing and getting fluffed equals "trashing a place" then any Broder column on McCain surely qualifies too...

Posted by goethean
January 29, 2007

A better analysis.

Posted by goethean
January 29, 2007

Hmmm...no html.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/01/post_22.php

Posted by Memekiller
January 29, 2007

Broder unloading on non-Republicans -- especially Hillary -- is not surprising. It's the same kind of civility we expect from you, Joe.

Civility is reserved for people like D'Souza, or discussing the need to interrogate attack Iran with "bunker bombs", or have Americans support death squads for the neo-cons self-coined "80 percent solution".

If Abu Ghraib is any indication, this is how Cheney can finally achieve stability with an ethically pure Iraq. First, the think tanks float articles suggesting a civil war may be an overall positive thing that lets off some steam. Then, Atlantic Monthly publishes a sensible article making the realist argument, as they did for torture or the pursuit of an American Emprire. Meanwhile, FOX sits ready to pounce on anyone that cdares to use the term "ethnic cleansing" or "gulag", or mentions the curious echo of the "Final Solution." Klien and Broder will nod and agree, that such terms are not worthy of such a serious, sensible discussion.

Broder then agrees and shakes his head because this is, after all, a tough situation, and all sensible people would consider this very sensible proposal worthy of polite, sensible discussion. Klien will justify those death squads he loves so long as they are under American control, and only used to kidnap and kill terrorists, while rolling his eyes at anyone who would doubt death squads could be limited to such people, or that we have a system that determines who is a terrorist rather than a Sunni with an unfortunate address. Then, once the problem 20 percent has been cleared, Broder and Klien will applaud the stability, and tell us it is time to rethink our criticism of Bush, who held firm and achieved his goals.

That's the part you and Broder play; it's your job to be sensible and mainstream frighteningly extreme notions that the American public could never stomach if they didn't have you there to reassure them with your polite demeanor. Your journalistic credibility is used to legitimize arguments that were previously unthinkable, by simply treating them as worthy of civilized discussion.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
January 29, 2007

What is truly remarkable about Broder's column on Senator Clinton and General Petraeus is that Broder does not make his customary "pox on both your houses" gesture of criticizing both parties at once. There's not a discouraging word in there about a Republican. I would wager that it's been years -- many, many years -- since Broder has written a column in which he criticized a Republican in Washington without making some effort to spread the blame to Democrats, too, -- you know, to be bipartisan about it. Which is remarkable in itself, given which party actually has been running the government until this month.

Posted by Paul, no not that one
January 29, 2007

A nasty column on a Clinton? From an inside the beltway columnist who, as Steve points out, dislikes the Clintons?
Yes that is newsworthy.
I bet there can't be more than a million of those printed.

Posted by trifecta
January 29, 2007

Shorter Broder. McCain is dreamy, Hillary has cooties.

No discussion of the merits of their positions. McCain is the straight talker though. Even though he really isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

There is a youtube compilation of McCain flip flopping. The problem with Broder, and you too Joe Klein is that you seem to agree with Hillary on subtance, but don't care. You all hate the Clintons.

JFK can sleep with dozens of women in the white house. You love him. You hate the Clintons. I remember Sally Quinn and David Broder treating the Clintons like trailer trash who lowered their property values.

I am not even a fan of Hillary. But for policy reasons. You all seem to be operating in another realm, where you decided the new kid in town was a hick, and you were all going to pick on him.

Why Joe? Seriously. Why do you folks hate them so much? What did they do to you? Like I said, you can take anything Bill and Hillary Clinton have done, and I can show you another politician that has done the same thing who you don't crap all over like you do the Clintons.

The fake rumors you all pass on them, you would never do with other people. You would try to verify first. But if you say it about the Clintons, it's ok.

Posted by Paladin
January 29, 2007

Whew, Joe, a dozen or so comments into it and both sides already hyperventilating. Hang in there, this "comments" thing can be brutal out here in the 'sphere.

Anyway, I'm as ambivalent about Hillary as you are, even though not a big fan of Broder, especially after reading anything he's written or heard him grump his way through another tedious exchange of the obvious on Meet The Press.

But, many of us are also getting tired of John McCain speaking for ALL of the military (brass, mid echelons, grunts, etc.) as some kind of collective group spokesman.

I know he paid some hard dues in North Vietnam that none of us can even imagine, but let the ones who are actually getting it done speak for themselves. They've earned the right.

Posted by plural
January 29, 2007

David Broder writes a hit piece about a Clinton and Joe Klein thinks this is news?

Posted by Tim Finnegan
January 29, 2007

What is this slagging of which you write? Is this the slagosphere we heard so much about?

Posted by MysteriousTraveler
January 29, 2007

Why did Time even start this blog?
The only time anybody comments is when some other blogger links to you and most of the comments are rips.
Time really didn't think this through.

Posted by Tim Finnegan
January 29, 2007

Slag? I can't find anything. Why does it sound vaguely misogynistic?

Posted by mikeg
January 29, 2007

A beltway pundit taking sides for John McCain against Hillary Clinton? Well, knock me over with a feather. When has that ever happened?

Posted by Memekiller
January 29, 2007

Here's some other takes on the Broder fluff:

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/01/when_broder_attacks/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/01/post_22.php

One makes the point that Broder picks McCain over Hillary even though he probably agrees with Hillary's position, and is not for an escalation. Why? Style over substance. Hillary didn't ask questions, so, let's send in the troops!

The other posits what really must have gotten Broder's ire up.

Posted by Dissento
January 29, 2007

But is Broder someone I want to have a beer with? That's all that really matters.

Posted by flounder
January 29, 2007

Tyrone brings up something I heard-don't know if it is true but it sounds ture enough for punditland. Broder has supposedly never used the word "partisan" when describing a Republican, yet often does so when describing Dems. Keep in mind he writes a column every single week lamenting the lack of bipartisanship in Washington. You'd think he would slip up and call Republicans on it at least once.
Broder is much more fun when he plays angry grandpa and yells at Stephen colbert to get off his lawn.

Posted by grab
January 29, 2007

This is easy
McCain = Escalation
Clinton = Not escalation

Who do you agree with Joe?

Posted by RT
January 29, 2007

Shorter Klein: Because I know Broder's fair and decent, it means that if he goes all Clinton Rules on Hillary's ass, the bitch must've deserved it.

Posted by AlphaLiberal
January 29, 2007

Please tell us where it is written that Senators must only ask questions and not tell the military what they're thinking.

Are Joe Klein and David Broder really saying that our military does not need to hear from our elected officials?

This is Bush's bizarro world where the USA is a country where the military tells the elected officials how things will be done and the elected officials should only ask meek questions and praise the leader.

Not that I'm backing Hillary! No way!

Posted by Jim
January 29, 2007

Let's see, David Broder had lived in Washington DC and still presumes to talk about what "midwesterners like me" think about "know-it-alls" like John Kerry and Al Gore. Yea, electing dedicated ignoramus has been a huge success.
This ridiculous old woman wrote a column in the post-election period in 2000 about how a court case two months before inauguration was "just like" the assassination of a president in Nov. 1963. Thank God there was still, at that time, an old lady with balls and brains--Mary McGrory--on the WaPo op'ed page to slap him back into place.
More recently, just last October, Old Lady Broder wrote a series of columns about the 'sensible center', the heroic moderates who were going to save us from George W Bush--Saint McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Liebmerman, John Warner, Ken Salazar, Chris Shays. Besides the fact that these people were, to a one, prowar, two weeks after Broder's senile hagiography, every one of these gutless, despicable cowards voted for torture. Ol' Mrs Broder was silent.
Even since then, the old neighborhood busybody who thinks Bill Clinton's blowjobs were more serious than Bush's war told us that the Blue Ribbon Commission of Bipartisan Elder Statesmen would save us. It was called Baker Hamilton.
People like Broder, and to a lesser extent Russert, can't accept the fact that Bush is not, in fact, pretending to be an extremist who will someday reveal his inner Eisenhower (for the Kleins and the Tweeties, it's St McCain who will be sensible and moderate without ever being girly like Gore and Kerry).
Joe: Bush is insane, McCain is a coward and an idiot. Write up a memo, circulate it to Tweety and Russert, and then the three of you can host a retirement party for Broder, who expiration date was some time back in the late 80's.

Posted by Jim
January 29, 2007

PS: I don't like Hillary either, but if old lady Broder and chubby balding children who gather around her rocking chair for Beltway CW Storytime had been half as hard on Bush as they reflexively are on people with a D after their name, Bush wouldn't be president and we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Posted by RT
January 29, 2007

Dissento asks: "But is Broder someone I want to have a beer with? That's all that really matters."

Can you imagine a more wasted hour? I can barely bring myself to *read* Broder's columns, and I read pretty damned fast, so at least it's over with quickly.

BTW, dissento should have added, "And whether they were in the popular clique, the academic clique, the nerd clique, or whatever back in high school."

I know it's been said, but Bog help us, what a buncha Heathers we've got in the media. I think the citizenry cares more about actual *issues* and stuff than the punditocracy does.

Posted by ...Crust
January 29, 2007

Why is it not remotely noteworthy that the oh-so-civil Broder is attacking Clinton? Here's a clue...

Posted by Tim Finnegan
January 29, 2007

Beavis and Butthead, another ninties throwback would say; 'Heh, he said period'.

Posted by AlphaLiberal
January 29, 2007

Please rule me out from any beers with Broder.

I was writing a column in my head over the weekend, "Still want to have that beer with Bush?"

We need to kill this method of electing Presidents dead.

Posted by Aaron
January 29, 2007

David Broder attacks someone named Clinton?

It must be a day ending in a Y.

"Dog bites man" ain't news, Mr. Klein. Journo 101.

Posted by Halfdan
January 29, 2007

I'm not sure I understand the criticism. Petraeus' confirmation was a fait accompli; you might as well congratulate her for not bothering to ask "self-serving" questions when the outcome was never in doubt.

I.e., Petraeus and his views on nearly everything were a known quantity, and at least Clinton was honest enough not to pretend otherwise just for the sake of Broder's column.

Posted by Blackacre
January 29, 2007

If Broder's work ethic leads to columns like this one, I'd hate to read what lazy columnists churn out.

Posted by dave
January 29, 2007

There's really only one response to anything Joke Line writes:

Blow it out your ass.

Anything else is giving the motherfucker too much credit.

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

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 herself when she visited Iraq the previous week.

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

David Broder is yet to write a column expressing outrage for all the lies Bush told the country to launch this ruinous war. He is yet to suggest "it is not his place".

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

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

And another thing; David Broder like Joe Klein and the entire DC media establishment is a McCain groupie. He manages to fawn over St John McCain yet one more time in his "I hate Hillary" column.

Who can forget Broder's column about decent, principled St John McCain courageously opposing the torture bill. Soon after he wrote that column McCain voted to give Bush authority to torture anyone he wanted. Needles to say no follow up column condemning St John McCain from Broder, Klein or anyone else among the DC pundits. St John McCain remains the straight talking maverick.

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

BTW, did anybody notice that on a day when tens of thousands marched againt the war, when polls show 60 to 70% of the American public opposes the war, the Sunday Washington Post opinion pages did not have a single anti war view? They had wall to wall neocons, including Robert Kagan who has to be the most discredit pundit next to Bill Kristol, they even had that vile hate monger D'Souza but they did not have single columnist challenging the Bush regime.

Washington Post cheered on this war. Its editorial page not only supported the war but demonized and smeared anyone who opposed the war. Even now at this late date with the public overhelmingly opposed to the war they stack their opinion bages with neocon dead-enders.

Posted by JJ
January 29, 2007

"Why did she choose to do that? There could be lots of reasons..."

Yup. Can't we get a little deeper analysis, Joe? This isn't necessarily incuriousity at all. (For the record, I'm not even a Hillary supporter.)

Posted by JJ
January 29, 2007

"including Robert Kagan who has to be the most discredit pundit next to Bill Kristol"

You mean this Bill Kristol?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=153112

Posted by Derek
January 29, 2007

I think one of the main frustrations with Mr. Broder is the result of a perceived misuse of the concept of "moderation", on his part, and the general obsession the MSM appears to have for dealing in false equivalencies.

Centrism, or moderation, has become cult-like. People cling to a belief in it without ever delving into exactly what it means. It isn't an ethical discussion about virtue, or the mean between vices, as Aristotle explained it. It is more of a mindless mantra now. It gives just as much weight to this argument, as opposed to that, even if the argument is ridiculous.

It probably didn't serve Mr. Broder well to insult ordinary Internet users either.

Posted by todd b.
January 29, 2007

OK, Broder is not an arm-chair pundit. He shouldn't give up his day job to play devil's advocate either.

I may have missed it before so would you, on Mr. Broder's behalf, please tell me what important questions were asked, let alone got answered, at the Petraeus hearing? I do not recall that anything remotely relevant or news-worthy other than the nomination got out of committee. So would you kindly explain why it was a "big mistake" for Hillary not to ask any questions.

Posted by Jillian
January 29, 2007

Broder is a fool for supposing that asking earnest-sounding questions of Petraeus has some kind of compelling meaning. It has meaning in attempting to legitimate Petraeus as competent in his realm, and McCain as informed on details, which wasn't actually in question.

The Senate's job isn't to worry about the operational details of a military operation- the overall political situation is their realm of business. That ostensibly lies outside Petraeus's competence. (Just read most of his public statements.) In that sense, there were really only a handful of pertinent questions to ask Petraeus. I think Broder bought into the right wing fetishism of military detail.

To be blunt, Broder is not a sharp tool in the kit. He tries to make up for his provincial biases and gullibility by hard work. But it can rarely if ever be said that he has out-thought his subject or mentally gotten ahead of the situation he's writing about. He's a relic of a more trusting and ignorant America, in which it was respectable to be a mental follower/dependent. Which is why we find him obsolete and somewhat contemptible. (Of course, his diametric opposite, the narrow-minded contrarian/controversialist "rebel" journalist, is just about as dated and contemptible.)

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

JJ,

"Yup. Can't we get a little deeper analysis, Joe? This isn't necessarily incuriousity at all."

David Broder and Joe Klein neglect to tell their readers how Hillary chose to use her alotted minutes, what she actually said.

During the hearing Joe Lieberman repeatedly made the suggestion that those who question the Dear Leader and his war plans were undermining the troops, aka being unpatriotic. It was a despicable assertion by Lieberman. Hillary chose to use her valuable minutes to rebut this vile assertion.

She made the right decision because until this smear is debunked we can't have a meaningful debate in this country.

Of course David Broder doesn't mention this in his column. Maybe because the smear came from another Broder favorite Joe Lieberman.

If Broder and Klein had any decency and civility they would be writing columns condemning Joe Lieberman for making such a despicable statement. But they won't because Lieberman is a sainted member of their clique.

Posted by TomT
January 29, 2007

I'm the one that caught Carney on lying about Clinton's approval rating, so why don't you read this one and give me an honest answer:

(1) Isn't it fair to ask if Broder has an anti-Clinton agenda? After all, he famously said of Bill: "he trashed the place and it wasn't his place"?

(2) Which is worse: Hillary Clinton failing to ask a question at a hearing or Saint John McCain (lauded by Broder for asking Petraeus a lot of obsequious questions) saying "Iraq will be an easy success" (in 2002) and now saying "no one said it would be easy"?

Look, we all know you love David Broder and John McCain.

How about you try acting like a man for once and answering my questions here, Mr. Klein? You like to talk about tough guys -- are you tough enough to field questions?

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

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?"
-------------------
This is the part Broder and Klein are leaving out.

Lieberman and McCain both used their minutes to suggest that those opposing the escalation were aiding and abetting the enemy. Hillary Clinton used her minutes to rebut this.

And yet in Broderland, McCain and Lieberman represent civility, voice of reason, moderation. And Hillary Clinton is a Power Hungry Bitch who Will Do Anything to Win.

Posted by porgy tirebiter
January 29, 2007

Dear Mr Klein,

It's not just the "blogosphere." Nobody outside the beltway likes you, Broder, or any of your pals. In fact, a lot of "ordinary people" think you're all a bunch of clowns who really ought to shut the hell up get get off our televisions because you have nothing worthwhile to say. Believe it or not, many people realize that government policies have a direct impact on their lives, and they're pretty pissed off that all they hear about is who'd be a fine beer-drinking buddy, who played what role in high school, and who's got COOTIES for God's sake. You're not serious people; you're pathetic courtiers and court jesters.

Just thought you should know.

Love,
Porgy

Posted by DonB
January 29, 2007

"(1) Isn't it fair to ask if Broder has an anti-Clinton agenda? After all, he famously said of Bill: "he trashed the place and it wasn't his place"?"

In Broder's universe a legitimately elected president has no place in Washington. The town belongs to those Broder et al deem "one of us".

Posted by TomT
January 29, 2007

And I'm sorry, but "riding buses and hitting the living rooms" is considered heroic now. Only in punditland.

How about going to Iraq and reporting from there? I'll take Michael Ware and Lara Logan as role models over Broder in a heartbeat, though I'm sure you would condemn them for not repoting enough of the good news.

Why don't you take some of the questions from the comments, anyway? Try acting like a man every now and then.

Posted by Anonymous
January 29, 2007

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

You didn't address a single reason WHY he's commonly slagged.

Posted by translator
January 29, 2007

"his work ethic--and not just his kindness, civility, judiciousness and institutional memory."

AKA: obsessive-compulsive, passive-aggressive, two-faced, attack dog who bears irrational grudges for decades.

Your codes are inscrutable, Mr Klein, but not unbreakable.

Posted by McAdder
January 29, 2007

kien. The correct use of the word 'Slag' as you mean to use as a verb is to 'Slag off.'

A slag isjust a nasty old slut.

Which as it happenes is a good description of Broder. But entirely unitentional on your part.

Posted by McAdder
January 29, 2007

PLease use the correct idiomatic use of slag.

Verb:

"It's cool to SLAG OFF Broder."

Or

Noun:

"Joe Klien is a nasty old SLAG."

See Wank.

"Joe Klien is WANKER"

"Joe Klien is having a WANK."

Posted by MinorRipper
January 29, 2007

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 Anonymous
January 29, 2007

Joe Klein is still a loser.

Posted by D Broder
January 29, 2007

Thank you for your support, Joe. And don't forget, dinner's still at Signature 2; Ignatius and Hiatt will be there as well. Afterwards, we can ride the 52 bus to Mount Pleasant. We are regular people after all ...

Posted by Quaqmire
January 29, 2007

Klein is Broder's fluffer.

Giggity-giggigty.

Posted by Dr. Barmpot Shouty-Crackers
January 29, 2007

The corps de pundits are going to twist those pearls right off their delicate little throats if this keeps up....

Posted by Avedon
January 29, 2007

And yet, what I find remarkable is that David Broder just hates the Clintons and says things about them that he would probably recognize as completely out of order if someone else said them about any other politician.

But then, I have never understood the press corps' relationship to the Clintons. It started off with the media all swooning about Bill like he was the second coming, and then sometime between the primary and the '92 Democratic Convention they all started throwing out the hate like he'd jilted them or something. After that, there was nothing anyone could say about the Clintons that was too extreme.

And David Broder thought the White House belonged to him and not to the rest of us - not even the President we'd elected to live in it. And he said so in print.

Why do you find this appalling behavior acceptable?

Posted by towolk
January 29, 2007

You know, I've tried to give Swampland a chance, but I find I come to it just to read the latest self-parodying D.C. pundit bile I would have liked to have left behind with the print editions of the Washington Post, NY Times, et al.

Is this what Time intended? Probably not, but hey, traffic is traffic!

Posted by JohnnyK
January 29, 2007

Joe - this is why you are so retarded.
Score these two problems from 1-10, with "one" being San Diego not getting good waves for surfing, and "ten" being losing a major war.
a) Hillarty Clinton doesn't ask General Petraeus a question.
b) George Bush takes us to war by telling a series of lies, and then goes ahead and loses the war to adult insult to injury.
Now why would you chose to fluff Broder instead of using your soap box to address a real problem in America - The Iraq War? The Iraq War? The Iraq War?

Posted by bob
January 30, 2007

The most impressive thing about Time's new blog Swampland is how quickly the commentary has degenerated to the level of its name.

Joe Klein should never blog. He will never get it. Ana Marie Cox came and got a bad case of MSM.

Posted by Ga
January 30, 2007

These Broder and Klein post re: Hillary's speech have been really PETTY.

How about some discourse on the CONTENT of her speech? How about trying to answer the question WHY did she give a speech instead of asking questions?

Maybe she just wanted to make a POINT to the General? I don't know. You tell me?