But, Seriously....

YOU will NOT use the NAME LIEBERMAN without the word TRAITOR in front of it. EVER.

"He's entitled to his opinion."

If you were The Dude in The Big Lebowski, this would be a funny line.

But Greenwald wasn't calling you out on your, like, "opinion," man. He was calling you out on your distortion of fact.

Nice job changing the subject, though. You've learned something from watching all those Bush press conferences.

IMPEACH ALL WHO LIE!

Joe, the point is, many of us feel very strongly since we argued/protested/blogged about how this was a huge mistake before the war stared. When are well-researched, serious position was portrayed repeatedly by the MSM pundits as "not serious", "silly", and "naive" (making Wes Clark and Gen. Zinni naive too, I guess) it is so galling. You're not the only one attached here-we've been on the receiving end of this since at least the summer of 2003. Thank God for snark and the blogs.

By not commenting on this very point you're missing a big chance to connect with us. Big miss.

Man I can't type. Sorry, corrections:

Joe, the point is, many of us feel very strongly since we argued/protested/blogged about how this was a huge mistake before the war started. When our well-researched, serious position was portrayed repeatedly by the MSM pundits as "not serious", "silly", and "naive" (making Wes Clark and Gen. Zinni naive too, I guess) it is so galling. You're not the only one being attacked here-we've been on the receiving end of this since at least the summer of 2003. Thank God for snarky blogs that kept our spirits up!

By not commenting on this very point you're missing a big chance to connect with us. Big miss.

Greenwald seriously under-estimated your willingness to tell untruths in the service of your ego. Or you seriously under-estimated peoples' ability to see through your weak attempt at defending yourself against (yet another) serious smackdown. Nobody ever gets the best of Serious Joe. Seriously.

But seriously...

That was a hell of a backbend you just did.

Didn't address Greenwald's points either which is typical.

Here are some of my favorites o' mine that never get addressed. You can chip in if you want Joe.

1. Why was the media flipping out over Clinton's private parts, and is less upset about our constitution?

2. Why does Bill Kristol's performance as a pundit the last few years entitle him to a job at Time?

3. Why does the media demand that the democrats be bipartisan when they take over a branch of government, but never do the same to Republicans?

4. Why don't liberals get hired as columnists? I am not talking left of center like in an EJ Dionne kind of way. Why don't people like Glenn Greenwald or anybody as liberal as the following columnists are conservative get the same chance.

George Will, Bob Novak, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Cal Thomas, Mona Charen.

Why when they are spectacularly wrong is nothing done to their careers?

Even though you don't directly address it, let me go another way. You are the Arlen Specter of columnists. You mouth some of the right things often, then act like Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown.

You are then held out as "the liberal columnist" and we get cranky. You don't seem to understand why we feel that way.

Really?

This is a pretty good post. Thanks for engaging commetors and the blogosphere.

Thanks for your moral clarity on Sen. Lieberman. I once admired the man, as I did McCain. And I once reflexively trusted government claims about important matters. Live and learn.

Glad to hear that you're reading Greenwald. His arguments are always well-supported. His second post today, on your being 100% wrong about Paul Krugman, doesn't seem to leave much room for rebuttal.

Also, I'm sorry, but you had to do more to count yourself a war opponent, at a time when you were writing for TIME magazine and appearing on national TV, than bury some implied criticism of the war somewhere in a column on Slate.com geared largely at mocking Al Gore. Nothing in the article you link in this post, about Lieberman in 03, has anything to do with criticizing the Iraq war.

You had a platform, and you didn't use it.

Maybe somewhere in your secret heart of hearts, you opposed the war. But that doesn't count. I'll stop going around saying you supported it (I did support it, for my part), but you didn't exactly oppose it, either.

And if you genuinely _did_ oppose it, but were afraid to write columns and make TV appearances forthrightly saying so, DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THERE'S SOMETHING TO THE CRITIQUE OF THE MEDIA that keeps getting offered here in the comments section and at Greenwald's blog, and Atrios's? I mean, fer chrissakes, you're taken to be the far left pole of liberal reasonableness on Chris Matthews and in TIME. But all the respectable people, "every serious Democrat," as Cynthia Tucker said, supported the war. Why has seriousness been separated from reality?

So you *highlight* the fact that you thought Lieberman had a "native moderation" and that his loss in the Democratic primary would make him rethink his position on the war?

You highlight the fact that you're a blind and dottering man who uses "centrist moderation" like a cane?

Seriously?

Wait? JOe thought it was a good idea to nuke Iran? Sounds like he joined the neocons with HoJo.

IMPEACH ALL WHO DID NOT OPPOSE THE WAR OR DO NOT OPPOSE IT NOW.

(except HIllary because she will fix it when she is Madame President)

I seriously forgot to add that in the serious world of Serious Joe, a lot of people seem to be seriously "obsessed" with him ("pathetic" Eric Alterman was the last person Serious Joe accused of being a stalker). Serious Joe, like all desirable objects, attracts stalkers. Or is this another serious example of serious projection? Or perhaps it's something else.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy. (DSM-IV)

" Narcissists rarely enter treatment and, once in treatment, progress very slowly. We're talking about two or more years of frequent sessions before the narcissist can acknowledge even that the therapist is sometimes helpful. It's difficult to keep narcissists in treatment long enough for improvement to be made -- and few people, narcissists or not, have the motivation or the money to pursue treatment that produces so little so late."

I really don't have anything to say about Mr. Klein's bizarre obsession with me.

This past week, an attorney general perjured himself under oath, a former nominee to the supreme court refused to honor a legally binding subpoena, the president signed an executive order stripping citizens of their fifth amendment rights on his word that they are supporting terrorists, FEMA was discovered to allow people to live in toxic trailers instead of testing them, the Justice Department refused to honor contempt citations, yet squishy "seriousness" prevails.

Again, moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue.

Glenn isn't obsessed with YOU per se but you do represent a fine example of what is wrong with our national discourse. Your use of the term "irresponsible" to describe John Edwards withdrawal plan is a symptom of the same problem. Huse swaths of American Public opinion are marginalized and ridiculed because they don't share the same basic assumptions that guide your thinking. Here are some things that are true but are nevertheless ignored:

1: There are finite limits to what can be accomplished with the US military as it is currently constituted.

2: Killing people is wrong except in cases of self defense.

3: All persons are created equal and have an equal right to be secure in their homes.

4: The current US military supremacy has been purchased by investing in high-tech armaments deliverable by air. Such armaments are rather useless for the current mission.

5: There is no current mission.

All these things are true but none of them even begin to enter in the "debate" as it is being played out in the media. Your contribution to the marginilzation process has been significant.

As long as your idea of a "reasonable" position falls between Hillary and Holy Joe, then I will always consider YOU an extremist.

Joe,

Some friendly advice: Don't ever get yourself stuck on a TV talk show with Greenwald. He will eat you alive. He is the brightest, most diligent, and most perceptive pundit on the planet.

You are Joe Klein.

As to the level of anger you see targeted at you, trifecta makes a very important point.

There are many, many far-right columnists at the Post, Time, Newsweek, and on TV. But how many liberal pundits are there? Almost none.

So the frustration you see isn't just about you, it's about the state of the media. If Digby and Glenn Greenwald were in the magazines and on TV, your "seriousness" pose wouldn't be such a concern.

In the Krugman story that Greenwald highlights, you come across as an enforcer of center-right political correctness. Again, you're entitled to have, like, your "opinion," man. But when you use the term "unserious" as a club-- which you don't dispute that you did, unfairly and inaccurately, against Krugman-- it really rankles because of the context.

The context is a media with almost no liberal commentators, in a country driven into the ground by conservatives.

Thanks for continuing to engage, and hope that you understand why there might be a seemingly disproportionate level of anger targeted at you sometimes.

"If the Iranians persist in crazy talk about wiping Israel, or New York, off the face of the earth, it isn't a bad idea if we hint that we can get crazy, too."--Joe Klein

Joe, that quote of yours from another post is another example of you just simply spouting the MSM line without doing your homework.

Have you ever read Juan Cole? He can be very educational. Within the link I've provided, you will find his learned explanation about what Ahmadinejad's quote that you are referencing actually translates to. It isn't what you, without thought, have been repeating.

http://tinyurl.com/yhe6b7

"those of us who want a phased withdrawal of American troops (starting now)"

Isn't that a precipitous withdrawal?

Seriously, though, I thought you post was in response to me, not Greenwald.

I read Glenn Greenwald every day. I read him because he is paying attention to people like yourself whose job it is to speak on behalf of the public interest. Because you are a journalist, the things you say have an impact on the things that other people think they know. The things you say help to influence the direction we take as a society.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, to assume that what you say you say because you believe it. It is difficult to do that, because so many of the things you say stand in direct opposition to the facts. The facts of what has happened and what is continuing to happen in this country and in the world. Do you really realize how screwed up this country is? Do you realize the degree of pain and suffering we as a country have created in the world? Do you realize how wrong this administration has been about everything, absolutely everything it has put its hands on? Not just the war. Everything. Do you realize that you have played a part in this? The Internet never forgets. Everything down to the last letter, comma and period is there for all to see. And all anyone has to do is read what you write to know the part you have played in this American tragedy.

Whether you like it or not, you are accountable for the things you say. Glenn Greenwald knows that. Covering you and commenting on the the things you say is not an obsession on his part. It's a public duty.

Geez, Joe. No, actually this is straight forward. Think you finally got 'issue' serious without the usual nuance about this one.

trifecta posted a startling list, but the FEMA trailer thing is really not new news. It just got someone's attention much like the rest of it.

The Pat Tillman thing is looking uglier. The Wounded Warrior lawsuit is real with the Dole-Shalala report putting the ball in the Pres. court. Who does he nominate for Nicholson's job? Meanwhile, the ISG's report is growing more moldy with Pakistan testing missiles capable of delivering a nukelear war head.

Despite Hil's letter to the Pentagon and her dust up with Obama and her 'I'll end the war', we still don't know if she supports permanent US bases in Iraq.

Serious stuff that needs serious look-sees, not a surface Duffy analysis based on iffy facts.

Somehow, I think you can get serious.

Mr. Klein,

You, sir, are a right wing nut enabler. Deal with it.

I really don't have anything to say about my bizarre obsession with myself.

"this was a weird column for someone who favored the war to have written. Perhaps Greenwald can explain to me my motivations for having written it."

I don't think anyone at Abu Graib has been tortured as much as you torture logic Jo(k)e. Why is it weird? You simply pointed out the pro-Israel faction's rationales for war, which evidently dovetailed w/ your own. It was only 2 weeks after this article where you explicitly gave your support for the invasion on MTP thusly:

"This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it-it probably is. Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out... The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."

This was a weird statement for someone who opposed the war to have said. Perhaps Jo(k)e can explain to me his for having said it...explain it w/o using Einsteins theory of relativity, Jo(k)e.

"I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me."

There you go again.

You guys need to cut Joe Kline some slack every once in a while. I think he's shown a lot of tenacity in his blog postings. He does need to be more careful about the facts, though.

I agree with what others here say about Greenwald and Krugman. Fairly, or more improbably, unfairly, you epitomize what I'm frankly sick of - a token liberal trotting out narrowly considered content devoid of the overall context from which the issue ought to be considered, knowing all the while that you're doing it. And then making up excuses when you get called on it. It's hard to respect someone like that, especially someone as smart as you.

Joe,
Sorry to have gotten under your skin with my comment. I should have been clearer about what I was objecting to. In the post in which my comment (quoted above) appeared, you were asking whether the Pentagon is anti-Patraeus, and the reason you thought that may be the case was because some other guy had been passed over for a promotion. So the question "Is the Pentagon anti-Patraeus" doesn't make any sense, and you asked that question because you came up with some bizarre scenario. Considering how seriously you love to take yourself, I thought maybe I should point out that lapse.

I may as well generalize here about your seriousness while I'm at it: you think that if some guy is funded by a place with "institute" in its title, you must take him seriously, no matter how crazy and/or wrong he may be. Your seriousness cripples your ability to think.

Yours in seriousness,
Acid

If Mr. Klein actually opposed the war, he wouldn't have columnized in favor of the supplemental, which he later called an "outrageous Bush budget flim flam." If he was really in favor of a phased withdrawal, then why did Mr. Klein not support Levin-Reed, instead of what he admitted was a "toothless, mushy" alternative?

It is not a matter of what Mr. Klein said a few years ago - it is what he is saying RIGHT NOW that matters. Is he ever going to seriously criticize the lying, smearing, cronyism, Justice Department politicizing, stonewalling, obstructionist, filibustering, torturing, habeus corpus destroying, warmongering, incompetent, Social Security destroying, abuelita felonizing, worldwide gulag running, warrantless domestic eavesdropping, Constitution-shredding, Geneva Convention ignoring, FEMA destroying, pedophile protecting, bribe-taking, stunningly corrupt Bushies and the smarmy stenographic sycophants in the media?

It is appalling what is happening to our country and all Mr. Klein seems to want to do is pick more and more fights with liberals. When is the apology to Krugman and Greenwald and everyone else Mr. Klein has insulted with his dearth of seriousness ever going to come?

Joe, whenever you try to explain how you weren't really saying what you were saying (like that you'd always vote for Joe L) because some other time you said something else, it's very hard to follow. I think it's because you're not really all that consistent.

It does seem like you've changed your mind-- now you're for a "phased withdrawal starting now", after getting kind of hysterical a couple months ago, claiming that anyone who wanted withdrawal was a loon.

It's so hard keeping track! Do you think you could maybe go back and do a timeline of your various opinions? The big problem is that you make radical changes in your opinions without actually admitting that it's a change. And those who try to make sense of this... well, can't make any sense of it.

It sort of seems a bit ... umm... unserious?

Just the fact that Greenwald, like Alterman, has criticized you in a grand total of maybe 1% of his posts in the past year, this qualifies as a "bizarre obsession" for you.

You're like a teenager, thinking you are starring in your own movie.

Grow up, man!

Joe - Thanks for the post. This is gold: "Anyone who trucks with these right-wing fundamentalists who take the Book of Revelation literally is a fool. I mean, Joe, don't you realize that in the rapture, we Jews get incinerated?"

You realize that you just called Bush's remaining base (some 24%) a bunch of fools?

And it is great to see you make it official and consign Lieberman to the ranks of The Unserious.

There is always much to discuss with you Joe but this is progress enough for tonight.

Dear Joke Line,

Blow me.

Very truly yours...

You know, you're missing an opportunity here, Joe. You could actually write an exploration of why the MSM went so wrong for so long, examining your own writing and punditting and TV appearances, and thinking back to what was going on in your head at the time. It would be a great analytical piece. The problem is that most of the MSM critics are writing from the outside and always have been. They're good at showing inconsistencies and falsity, but can't see inside. You can-- because you were one of them. You can tell us why you guys kept thinking Bush had some thrall over the public, why you kept giving him passes, what happened, how your native skepticism got hijacked.

It would be a powerful piece that would truly make your reputation. I mean it. I'd read it. Unsparing honesty-- which I don't think we've ever see from you-- and in-depth analysis from you-- not just about the president, but your own response to him-- will make a fascinating study that will be read for years.

Do it, Joe. You'll feel cleansed, and it'll save your career when Time hires Glenn or Digby to replace you.

Posted by plum
July 26, 2007
Joe, whenever you try to explain how you weren't really saying what you were saying (like that you'd always vote for Joe L) because some other time you said something else, it's very hard to follow. I think it's because you're not really all that consistent.

---------------------

This is one of the symptoms of the dread disease pundicitis. Someone afflicted with this disease has a pathological fear of making unhedged statements, except when the statements attack the left, in which case this fear is replaced with an almost rabid mania. Other symptoms: cowardice; avarice; a lust for attention and exposure; a highly inflated opinion of one's intellect, judgment, and self worth; a love of pointless gossip and trivia; and binge consumption of cocktail weenies and expensive liquor.

In this case Lieberman is not a liberal, so the pathological fear kicks in, and Serious Joe must hedge his criticism with heaps of praise. Had it been someone to to the left of Lieberman he would have gone into snarling attack mode; someone to the right would have either received less praise, or, if really out there, been ignored.

As yet, there is no cure.

"My hope last summer was that Lieberman would respond to the Ned Lamont challenge by returning to the land of the sentient and rethinking his foolish position on the war."

You write this, and then chide the Democratic Left for being 'unserious' and 'politically ignorant'?

Com'on, Joe. Write more for us on the naivety of the flower children. You really are something else.

The purpose of an opinion journalist or columnist is, I think, to present some form of narrative of the actions of an administration or individual.

This is because the news reporting generally covers only the new events and its therefore difficult for even attentive readers to keep a clear picture of a long running story.

I think you might have agreed with this once. In fact you wrote an entire book (Primary Colours) with a narrative about Clinton and the story of his campaign (Unlike many here, I really liked that book).

But during the Bush years you stopped doing that. I wonder why that is. Maybe you could point me to a column you wrote where you attempted to explain (as best you could) the following major political stories:
1. The outing of Valerie Plame by senior Bush administration officials.
2. The Prosecutor firings.
3. The warrantless surveillance program
4. The Abramoff story
5. Administration claims of executive privilege.
etc etc

When you do cover domestic stories its usually about how this or that will look to the public.
I don't care how you think things look. I want to know what is happening.

Since about five years ago I have found Krugman about the only columnist in a newspaper who makes any effort to explain to his readers what is going on. Other than that its blogs for me.

I don't know why you changed. I don't know why you are afraid or unwilling to write any meaningful narrative about what is going on in Washington. Now that might be an interesting column.

You didnt even respond to the points in the post. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Eventually the bloggers are going to tire on calling you out for your lazy work.

Many people have been upset by the national gasbags for a long time, but its just recently you have been forced to actually address that.

And here we are, you address it without addressing any of the points made.

Seems kind of pointless on your part, dont you think?

I have followed politics closely for three decades, and its interesting to watch the DC insiders fall from grace. You are on the brink of becoming irrelevant.

There may still be time to save your reputation, and its very simple to do..

Be honest, do your homework, and tell the truth.

It really is that simple.

Wow, Joe. That was weak, even for you.

America's Concern Troll.

Exposed again.

Read Greenwald's blog.
Read Josh Micah Marshall's TPM.

The banhammer commeth...

testing banhammer

Well, Joe, it looks like you were right about the Republicans backing out of the YouTube debate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015889.php

I'll give you that much.

And, Joe, also since you're trying to be reasonable here, I'll be reasonable too: you're missing the point. The point is that you use the word "serious" to exclude people like Greenwald and Krugman from the debate.

I don't blame you. If I had my choice between squaring off against idiots like Jonah Goldberg versus dealing with keen intellects, I'd dismiss the keen intellects as "not serious" too.

But let's be honest: this is about you dodging real debate with your intellectual superiors. There's no shame in the fact that you're not the smartest person in the world, but there is shame in smearing those who whose arguments make a lot more sense than yours do.

I stopped reading Time magazine during Reagan's first term, so I wouldn't even know who Joe Klein is if it weren't for Glenn Greenwald, who I read every day.

The thing that seems interesting in the present case is that there isn't a single comment on this thread that attempts to come to poor ol' Joe's defense.

Sure, there are a couple of half-hearted kudos for his willingness to engage the opposition, a lukewarm appreciation for his not falling completely into the far-Right end of the pool, but by and large, it's fairly unanimous: Greenwald is spot on and Klein is an apologist mouthpiece for conventional authoritarianism.

cajun and Elvis are both right. I wonder if Mr. Klein can see Greenwald and Digby in the rear-view mirror?

I've been reading Glenn Greenwald since he began blogging. He's hardly "obsessed" with Joe Klein (let alone in a "bizarre" way!).

Glenn is more than "entitled to his opinions". His observations are usually astute, well thought out, reality-based and factually backed-up. Occasionally brilliant.

To blow him off so cavalierly does a diservice to your own journalistic integrity.

Those who criticize Iran and Iranian involvement---"serious". Those who suggest Saudi role in helping sunnis in Iraq - "unserious". Until today of course, when NYT had an article on the Bush Admin admonishing the Saudis. That is why it is never really useful to characterize positions as "serious" or "unserious", because usually positions must be changed (spun of course to hide the change).
Steadfast and resolute. It is probably better in the long run to simply designate specific individuals as "serious". That way they can change their positions and steadfast, "fact-based" opinions and still retain their "gravitas". John McCain once held a "serious" opinion, but was never viewed as truly "serious", so now he can be discarded. Bush on the other hand, yes, our sad, little president has always been regarded by many as "serious" as a heartattack. Cheney and Rumsfeld as well in their day. Though their popularity has declined, we are left with all their fellow travelers who still march to a "serious" tune. Face-saving rationalizing under the cover of the "serious".

Sandwiching a post from "Acid" between two references to Greenwald only highlights your intellectual dishonesty. Your floundering attempts to save your job in the MSM are becoming comical. How many more cancellations by Time subscribers can you handle?

Does anyone actually read the Book of Revelation? It does not literally predict any of the garbage the so-called "Christian" right claims it does. (Not to take away from your point about Lieberman and "Christian fundamentalists".)

> a diservice to your own journalistic integrity.

You just gave Joe a trippy flashback. Bell-bottoms, huge afro, rapping about journalistic integrity...

Sorry folks, but these posts where you wonder why Time continues to hire Joe Klein and when he is so consistetny wrong betray a lack of understanding of how things work at Time and in the corporate media in general.

Whether you are right or wrong, so long as you are apologist for those in power (as Klein so often has been) you are doing what the corporate bosses want. Hence, a man like Greenwald, as excellent, erudite, and incisive as he is, WILL NEVER BE HIRED BY TIME.

He doesn't play along with the corporate media narrative.

I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but the corporate media organizations exist to deceive you in the service of their own interests (making money, and futhering the agendas of themselves, their corporate advertisers, and the politicians that they own). "The truth" if it threatens those in power or those with whom they are aligned, is one of the last things they are interested in.

Exhibit A in this theory: William Kiristol has a job as a respected pundit at Time, when he has so consistently proven himself full of sh*t.

The corporate media are aligned with the neocons. Get used to it.

That is why the KOS is KEY. THE KOS is not aligned with the neocons. Go to the KOS and learn the TRUTH!a

I think most of us here are used to the way corporate media works... except for Joe of course. He still seems to seriously belive he's fighting the good fight against the Liberal Extremist Horde.

Poor kid.

Joe:

Thanks so much for at least beginning to address this matter. Many of the reasonable, thoughtful people here seem to be using the word "serious" to sarcastically describe the people in your circles who were (and still are) so unapologetically wrong about so many issues of such importance for so long.

None of the (actual) serious people here want you to "be more left wing", or to somehow express your solidarity with liberals by touting your support of this or that respectable Democratic domestic agenda item. That's not the issue here.

These folks are justifiably annoyed at you because you continually attempt to prop up your own credibility with the talk-show circuit gang by reflexively triangulating away from whatever national security position is currently popular on DailyKos. What's particularly frustrating is that you do so whilst edging ever so slowly and safely toward those very same positions as the fact of their popularity becomes unimpeachably evident, and more palatable as respectable positions to "important" people like yourself.

To most people I'm describing, this is like watching the media's reaction to Katrina in excruciatingly slow motion. Unlike the Gulf Coast disaster, the war's "heck of a job" moments (before and after) passed uncritically for far too long into the fiasco. It's as if the chattering classes had somehow invested in the idea that New Orleans was fine, that the hurricanes weren't that bad, and that it was only dreadlocked, conga-playing, street-theater protesting undergraduates who could suggest otherwise. It's like being brave enough to call it like one sees it is somehow an undesirable quality that only someone like Cindy Sheehan would exhibit in public (although perfectly acceptable in the case of, say, Rick Santorum). The forum for those with the acceptable opinion, the "serious" analysts of the "improving" situation in the Gulf Coast (about which the President and FEMA director would never lie--er, "mislead" the American people) would be wide open for debate, with commentary ranging from heartland-inspired geniuses like Kate O'Beirne to foaming Trotskyites like yourself. For those of us suggesting that large portions of New Orleans were actually underwater, and that the government was being less than honest in its assessments--not so much; we were essentially told "Meet the Press isn't for people like you...get in the street with the other PETA activists where you belong".

It seems that this is the "seriousness" problem that so thoroughly imbues our public discourse about the war. You and your colleagues were and still are a factor in this dysfunction. It's time for you to really understand what the critique is about, not to (seemingly deliberately) mis-characterize this as some sort of obsession on Greenwald's part.

Please, please comprehend what we're talking about...it's not about being "moderate", or "centrist". It's about some obvious fear you people have of being called liberals--probably justified in 1988, but not now--that obviously obstructs the good judgment of an otherwise educated class of people tasked with the dissemination of news analysis regarding the most important issues of our time.

Mate, just read Greenwald without your blinkers on - he's obviously not "obsessed" with you, but he does have a serious problem with the awful job the majority of the "mainstream media" is doing.

Seriously... some of can tell the difference between a logical argument and "opinion". Can you?

This sad piece actually makes me feel really sorry for Joe Klein.

Yes, at the current time in the USA, in order to become a member of the punditocracy, one either should be a right wing nut or an enabler of right-wing nuts. Joe is one of the latter.

Now, there have been exceptions that prove the rule, and one of the most interesting is Krugman. I forget where I read the story of how he was hired, but it does sound plausible. Seems like the NY Times in the late 90s was interested in hiring a columnist specializing in economics, and Tom Friedman recommended Paul Krugman, who had written for Slate and other publications and had a reputation as a nice safe pro-globalist but vaguely left-of-center economist. And that actually was an accurate description of him at the time. (And he still basically supports globalism, though he's more vocal about including protections, and ideologically, center-left is a pretty accurate description of his politics today.)

But what turned Krugman into a liberal firebrand was the Bush campaign's thorough dishonesty about their tax cut proposals during Election 2000. In Krugman's judgement -- and remember, the man is an economist -- the Bush campaign wasn't just pushing fuzzy math...they were pushing phony math. And the rest of the corporate media pretended not to notice the dishonesty.

So, of course, in the eyes of the Serious People, this nice safe pro-globalist, vaguely left-of-center economist suddenly became a shrill radical.

"Perhaps Greenwald can explain to me my motivations for having written it."

What an absolute putz...

And I came to that conclusion as a result of legitimate "reporting."

> I read Greenwald on occasion

Greenwald consistently writes about the issues most important to me, and backs up his commentary with comprehensive research and some of the most insightful analysis available anywhere, including from the MSM. I no longer take anyone seriously who doesn't read him every damn day.

Sez Allan Harris: "Sandwiching a post from "Acid" between two references to Greenwald only highlights your intellectual dishonesty."

Yeah. He didn't want to drag Atrios into the picture. But, frankly, I'm a poor substitute.

It's really astonishing that you actually linked to that 'update on Iraq' article in a response to Greenwald. I thought you made a very good attempt to lay it straight in this piece until I read that linked article.
'one of the smartest and most creative colonels in the U.S. Army,' Really? how's that?

"hot shot colonels like McMaster." is he a 'tough guy' too?

"was a Bush poster boy two years ago, when he used counterinsurgency tactics to (briefly) clean out Tal Afar in northern Iraq." Great, that didn't work. Must have been plied by politicians?

"military boards work in mysterious ways" That's just so serious.

"who is considered something of a hotshot himself by many of his peers in the Pentagon" I'm dreaming of Tom Cruise.

"Some of the best military gossip" If only we could all base our opinions on only the 'best' gossip.

"Was this some sort of message being sent? If so, it seems an incredibly stupid one. We need more generals like H.R. McMaster."

Was there a message. We don't know because their is no real information backing up your conclusion. Just a buch of pillow talk for your aqua velva man.

Is this supposed to be serious? The only message in this piece is that we ought to have 'hot shot' Bush poster boys from miserably failed strategies, that believe in a purely military solution to the Iraq occupation,leading our forces, and any deviation from the glorious general Patreaus' escalation strategy is 'stupid'. Of course you realize this view is held by a fringe right wing minority, right?

"Stupid" are you kidding? You said 'stupid'?

You mock imaginary 'mysterious' military detractors, conjured from 'gossip', of the Presidents policy and call your imagined rational for their decision 'stupid'.

This is a serious journalistic 'Update on Iraq'? You must be joking. Do you really not grasp the irony?

How can you link to this with out pointing it out as a prime example of Glenn Greewalds veracity about the miserable degredation of mainstream beltway journalism.

"As for Lieberman, one part of the column I wrote about him last summer is, somehow, never quoted--at least, not that I've noticed--by left-wing media bloggers"

There's a reason no one quotes it. It's because you offer no support of Lamont as a serious challenger, even though you claim, on Iraq, Lieberman was wrong and Lamont is right. You quote your column here as if it's proof that you've taken a stance against Lieberman's policies. But you concluded that column by saying, "Joe Lieberman is, without question, one of the finest men I've known in public life. I could never imagine myself voting against him."

Lieberman is wrong but "serious" so you would never vote against him. Lamont is right but "Democratic" and therefore unserious. It's vintage Joe Klein, and yet you're trying to pass that column off as if you were being hard hitting. What a farce.

Who said it?

"I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me."

a) A gorgeous starlet being stalked by a fan?
b) An internationally beloved ambassador of peace & goodwill being subjected to investigation?
c) A world-famous sports figure being targeted by an opposing player?
d) An egomaniacal & mendacious Time columnist being intellectually, logically & ethically whooped by a laser-focused, fact-checking and true MAN-OF-THE-PEOPLE Salon columnist who's fed up with the likes of said Time columnist and his putrid, pampered ilk?

When you dismiss having your journalistic clock cleaned as a 'bizarre obsession', you've moved beyond irrelevant ... you've become cringe-worthy.

Was there a point to your post?

Greenwald panned you for being a crappy researcher, and used the shut-out pitched by Krugman - a very, very good researcher - regarding counterinsurgency strategy to underline his argument.

This Greenwald post followed a brief mention of you and your feelings toward Lieberman in the previous GG post which seems to have originally gotten your hackles up.

Now the article you cite, where you argue Israel was the casus belli, is fine and there's plenty I would agree with, but it doesn't seem to prove or disprove your point about supporting the war. I read it again and you seem to be saying that an invasion of Iraq won't advance necessarily advance the peace process, it could set it back, and Bush had a job to do to ensure that the put the process back on track. Nowhere do you explicitly oppose the war, and I don't know why you continue insinuate that you did.

But the bigger distortion in your post is this: "My hope last summer was that Lieberman would respond to the Ned Lamont challenge by returning to the land of the sentient and rethinking his foolish position on the war. He has done the opposite..."

Let's unpack this. How did Lieberman respond to the Lamont challenge? By back-sliding from his unabashed support for the war.

Try this NYT article from August last year:

http://nytimes.com/2006/08/06/nyregion/06cnd-campaign.html?ex=1312516800&en=6a94f403f4d2d1d8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Lieberman apparently: "felt a “heavy responsibility” to end the war quickly"

AND

“I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment”

Smell that BS? That's Fredo Gonzalez Grade-A bullcrap. "More than most" and "against an open-ended commitment"... that's an utterly sick joke. So here's a suggestion, when you next speak to Lieberman or his flunkies, why not shove these blood-soaked lies back in their faces?

You see Joe, what drove me round the f*cking bend was that Lieberman lied his way through the campaign (not the primary), pretending to be in favor of withdrawal. His response to Lamont's pro-withdrawal stance (and Alan Schlesinger's in case you can't recall) was to lie.

Unfortunately, we could only be 100% certain Lieberman was lying after he got re-elected. And this is the point - YOU could have figured this out with teh google and five minutes of research, that Lieberman did "the opposite" AFTER he got re-elected.

His immediate response was to lie, and if you want to lose the label you carry of being a crappy researcher, you need to stop making these depressingly misleading mistakes.

Joe,
Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your own definition of the word 'serious', let me ask you this: how good do you think you are at your job?

As Joe undoubtedly knows, "Klein" means "little" in my native language - and how aptly has he proven his name as an fitting epiteth on this forum today.

luckily, whenever i find myself in a print shop and wish to buy a magazine to read on trains or planes, i generally have two choices in the english language.
i always leave Time in the shop, and ALWAYS walk out with the Economist. as a "serious" consumer, i vote with my feet.
thanks for strengthening my conviction with your childish blurbs, mr Klein. you are doing your bosses a huge favour (early retirement, perhaps ?)

I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. The disillusion with the punditocracy runs deep in these posts, Joe, and my guess is that some of the frustration is being directed at you. I read your piece and am struck by your critique of Lieberman (the poor fellow lives an some extraterrestrial dimension). My own take is that you have come a ways and continue to engage. I read Glenn Greenwald always and find his critique of a much higher standard than those to be found in Newsweek (with its preoccupation about grading its effusions) and Time. It may be worth inviting Glenn to Swampland and setting up a debate between you two. Think about it.

+1: lister, above

Be a man, Joe. Respond more fully to Greenwald's post, and also to the majority of letters that carry similar points:

Greenwald is not obsessed with You, though your ego may like to think so. He is obsessed with what you represent: twisting, dishonest capitulation to people who are actively destroying our country while deriding as "unserious" , ie, not of the establishment punditocracy (yet), those who have been right all along using facts and "serious study'.

Face it, Greenwald and Krugman Pwn you.

Joe Lieberman has revealed himself as a Likud agent.

Joe Klein:

This is an admirable defense; the Lieberman links really surprise me. Readers should ignore your dismissal of Greenwald as having a "weird fixation" on you, however, as I know you respect him and probably recognize that he makes you try to do your job better.

Another comment to encourage you: You were really right (and I was wrong in a comment) about that YouTube debate (linked to from TPM): http://prezvid.com/2007/07/26/scared-stampeding-elephants/

One final stab at the topic of "Serious":

Right now, on the blogs, serious people are discussing the impeachment of George Bush seriously -- whether it's possible, whether it's a good idea, how to go about it if it is, what are obstacles to it. But in the MSM impeachment isn't considered a serious topic, so these people are considered "unserious." They're dismissed by some as "the Jacobin--off with their heads!--wing of the (Democratic) party . . . "

At some point in the not too distant future the momentum for impeachment will reach a critical mass and the topic will somehow become worthy of discussion in the mainstream media. When that happens, will the media turn to the serious people who have been discussing it seriously all along (and know more about the topic than just about anyone)?

No, the media will turn as they always do to the "Serious" pundits they always turn to, who will mouth platitudes and conventional wisdom about a topic they really haven't researched in any meaningful way.

And those of us who've been paying attention all along will compare and contrast the serious things we've been reading online against the "Serious" discussions of the topic by the "Serious" pundits.

And guess who comes out ahead in that comparison?

Not buying it Joe. As if you do not have a hair-trigger sensitivity to criticism. As if you have not authored some serious excrement and then tried to explain that it did not stink. Perhaps the WaPo editorial page would be more suitable to your brand of conventional wisdom, but as you can see, it does not pass muster here.

Joe. Joe. What're ya doin' buddy?

Be serious. Either grapple with the substance of Greenwald's column on you or simply admit you were wrong on Krugman. And the war. And the terrorist surveillance program. Etc.

You simply don't seem to grasp the corner that you Beltway pundits have backed yourselves into. It's the corner where Americans angry at your Administration cheerleading and ill-informed positions get to endlessly wag their fingers at you. Because you guys have been wrong about everything and you claim to have been wrong in spite of doing the hard work to get it right. And then a simple Google search shows how easy it is to actually get it right ... and you couldn't be bothered.

If you cannot be intellectually honest, you shouldn't put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. And if you do it anyway, expect that you will find yourself analyzed, dissected and ridiculed and rightfully so.

Yes, Joe, it was ALL a coincidence yesterday. We definitely believe you on that.

What was it Shakespeare said about protesting and too much...?

:snicker:

P.S. You still owe Paul Krugman an apology.

Joe,

Are you saying that foolishly supporting this disastrous war is excusable as long as that support was "reluctant, nuanced or judicious"? Writing things like that is why you get mocked.

Mr. Klein, I would just like to mention that you are still not the top bullshit artist in the media. That honor goes to Kathy Noonan.

Your comment about epithets from "certain precincts in the blogosphere [where] those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting" was a response to non-discerning commenters on this site?

Please - that just doesn't wash.

"I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me."

Yes you do. You resort to name calling instead of addressing his questions. But that's to be expected, that's the state of our discourse now.

You could have written, "At this point, I don't have anything to say about the points he raises."

That would help the state of discourse. Instead, calling people serious, or in this case suggesting a 'bizzare obsession' is dismissal.

And dismissal sort of implies you agree with Mr. Greenwald.

Joe Klein is the Allan Colmes of Time magazine. I heard him on Morning Joe a few days ago trying to dismissively insult the "fringe" bloggers impugning his credibility. He sure sounded a little too eager to laugh it all off as silly and unimportant. I think it actually gets to old Joke Line very much. Anyone else see that. The old "he doth protest too much..."

Joke Line, did you want to address the Serious criticism you had of Krugman, when he opposed the Surge and you supported it? A lot of Glenn's post dealt with how badly you distorted the facts surrounding Krugman's piece, all in the service of your ego.

The Bearded Narcissist might be a better nickname for you.

This is GREAT! Here's a preview for the latest from Brave New Films. FOX ATTACKS! In the clip, Bill O'Rielly is smearing bloggers in his Talking Points Memo segment, and lo and behold! He's using Joe Klein's Time column too advance his case. HA! HA! FALAFEL BOY uses JOE KLEIN as a springboard for his loathsome Republican propaganda! And sorry old Klein can't figure out why real liberals detest him. It's proof of what they are saying. Joe's undeserved cred as a "liberal" is used gleefully by right-wing scumbags to justify their baseless smears. Fox wants to attack bloggers, who do they turn to? Joke Line! Joe Klein...doing Bill O'Reilly's bidding! Here's the link, the shot of Billo is 27 seconds into it: youtube.com/watch?v=mpht4sXDhx0&eurl=

Perhaps his "obsession" stems from his inability to comprehend how a ridiculous, cheerleading clown like you stays employed.

I find it interesting that Lieberman's office called you in anger when you wrote something true about them. Intimidation of the press is why we are at the vapid point we are now. Did they threaten to cut off your supply of cocktail weenies?

Mr. Klein - You, sir, are just sort of useless. You have managed to wheedle your way in to a position wherefrom all you can do is fend off criticism. Perhaps this would not be so if you did more "serious reporting" and avoided being a stenographer for the Washington cocktail scene.

...Patroclus, try reading Klein's columns before you write a list of things he hasn't addressed. I know how appealing it is to get the approval of the other armchair supremacists who post here, but get a clue. I remember him criticizing every point you list.

Question:
When Bill O'Reilly wants to smear liberal bloggers who does he turn to?

Answer:
Joe Klein!

youtube.com/watch?v=mpht4sXDhx0&eurl=

approximately 28 seconds into the clip

"But I've looked at Greenwald's two posts now. I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me. "

From "The Lord of the Rings":

Swagger it, swagger it, my little cock-a-whoop!

What exactly entitles Joke Klein to such incredible arrogance? It certainly isn't his record of accuracy or his personal integrity.

Once you read a lengthy column setting forth an actual argument by someone you've never read before, you instantly know whether you will a) go out of your way to read that person's opinion again, b) forget them in 5 minutes, or c) avoid them like a contagious disease. For me, Greenwald and Krugman fell into the a) category on the first reading, and I've never had cause to revise their standing. Joe Klein is a b). I haven't read anything by him yet that was interesting or insightful enough to remember 5 minutes later. It's mostly just vapid fluff, triangulated mainstream wisdom, and whiny self-justification amazed at criticism from any direction.

I will say, however, that the vast majority of the comments here have given me an optimism for the state of the world that few other things have in the last six years.

Grizz: Man oh man, did you EVER hit it on the head! That is so true!

Greenwald is brilliantly smart, and worth every second I spend reading him. Klein is so far behind, on defense, that Greenwald has circled the earth once while Joe is still pulling on his pants.

I feel sorry for Joe Klein, as I often do for David Brooks, George Will and a small number of other intelligent, articulate corporate media whores. A whore has to moan and writhe and make sure her client thinks he's the biggest and the best, and these guys are no different. If they want the coin, they have to tell the story the guy with the money wants them to tell. Joe Klein doesn't want to be a blogger, he wants to be a national columnist; to maintain that position, he has to tie himself in whatever knots the customer demands of him.
Or, to use another analogy, did you ever see two dogs at the park, one running free and the other on a leash? The dog on a leash is immediately at a disadvantage, feels terribly afraid and defensive; a fight is more likely to break out than not in this circumstance. Glenn Greenwald plays the role of the dog without a leash free to look at the facts with unblinkered eyes and state the truth as he sees it without fear of a jerk on his chain from above; the Joe Kleins, the Brookses, the Wills -- who knows what they really think? Who knows how hard they cry into their pillows in self-disgust in the night? Only when Klein is jobless and blogging will we ever know what he really thinks and feels.
None of which excuses any of them for the role they've played in the Bush Reign of Error. At the same time, they're only people, trying to get through their lives like the rest of us. The Corporate Mainstream Media are the real villains. Faceless, bloodless, always hungry, always growing, accountable to no one, the corporations lumber on like the robots in Terminator I. They are what we should be very, very afraid of.

What Joe Klein sez:

"But I've looked at Greenwald's two posts now. I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me."

What Joe Klein means:

"Greenwald revealed once again how I use my lofty roost at Time to enable the right-wing agenda that is destroying our country, and I really can't respond in any meaningful way, because he is 100% correct"

Joe, did you notice ANY comments supporting your position? Any at all? What do you think that means as to your credibility among the general public?

What may be most frustrating for so many Americans is waiting for MSM pundits to say or at least acknowledge what so many people feel--that President Bush is a lousy president. We got a lemon and can't return it. Forget his so-called charm or whatever personal qualities people like about him, he is a terrible president who makes lousy, ill-advised, partisan, short-sighted policy decisions that are harming our country. Let's start with that. The majority of Americans know that, as poll after poll has shown their continuing disapproval. Have you noticed that? I haven't even mentioned all of the distortions, lies, potential felonies, etc. this admistration continues to uphold. GG and other bloggers critique your writings because we have been waiting for you and other MSM pundits to make the break and really criticize en masse this administration and its terrible policies. We have been counting on (and waiting for) the "fourth estate" to do this for a number of years and it still hasn't happened. Where are you? We're tired of the talking head pundits who basically agree with each other while ignoring the REST OF AMERICA. This administration is still cut a lot of slack and I cannot figure it out. This administration has commited felonies and there's a shrug of the MSM shoulders. Perhaps people are launching into you because you do have a better grasp of reality than the Kristols of this world. We hope you will soon get tougher in your writings about this administration. Let me ask a simple question: If this was a Democratic administration, would you be reacting and writing about these issues the exact same way? The majority of Americans continues to wait...

Joe, Glenn always has the courtesy to link to posts of yours that he references, He WANTS his readers to witness every vapid word and meaningless phrase that flow forth from the steaming ooze in your head.

You, on the other hand, reference his post as an "obsession", but studiously avoid posting a link to his thorough smackdown of your very existence.

It's almost as if...as if...you don't WANT people to read Glenn Greenwald. Strange, you would think you would be EAGER to link to his silly "obsessive" posts about the mighty and serious Joe Klein.

I guess it must be an oversight, so I will help Joe out by supplying the link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

No need to thank me Joe!

I was away on vacation for a while, and sure Joe's petty remarks and unwillingness to engage Greenwald directly is standard Klein fare, but I was a bit surprised and downright pleased at his comments on Lieberman.

Todd, those comments on Lieberman are deniability nuggets, not really intended to detract from JK's overall stance but stashed inside his oeuvre to be pointed at in case he needs to flip inside his skin for a moment like one of those Chinese fighting dogs.

John wrote: ". This administration has commited felonies and there's a shrug of the MSM shoulders. Perhaps people are launching into you because you do have a better grasp of reality than the Kristols of this world. We hope you will soon get tougher in your writings about this administration."

Don't hold your breath. I'd also like to know why the Joe Kleins never take aim at creatures like Billy Kristol. Kristol is a lying, warmongering smirk-on-legs and I have yet to see a member of the MSM take him to task in any meaningful fashion. What exactly are they afraid of? What has Kristol ever done to warrant this hands-off status?

"My hope last summer was that Lieberman would respond to the Ned Lamont challenge by returning to the land of the sentient and rethinking his foolish position on the war."

Another example of how the "unserious" people and "extremists" were right and the "serious centrist" Mr. Klein was wrong.

How often does this have to happen before you notice the pattern and try to do something about it?

Moe, Larry, et al.: What are they afraid of? Simple: losing their jobs.

Mr. Klein,

Stop it. Just stop it. Please read the cover story in the July30/August6 issue of the Nation, and think about what you have wrought. You are part of the problem. Please do the honorable thing and stop writing.

Sorry if this has been pointed out in the previous comments - no time to read through them all. Two points:

1. Despite critizing Sen. Leiberman, criticism I agree with, your article did operate within the frame of "pox on both their houses" moderation for its own sake thinking that is generally associated with what gets derided as phony seriousness. Getting one question right on a test doesn't mean you've aced it.

2. You're a media figure who writes for Time & appears on TV. People will write about you, so stop whining about bloggers having a "bizarre obsession" for writing about you. Get over it.

Joe - As far as I know, you are the first person taken seriously by the bigwigs in Washington (at least I imagine they take you seriously, otherwise you wouldn't have your own column in Time) who has called Lieberman out on being a nutcase. Thanks for trying to inject a little reality into these people's world.

I echo everything that's been said about the "bizarre obsession" remark (which was, itself, bizarre), about the "entitled to his opinion" bit (which really does sound like something a churlish grade-schooler would say after being called to the carpet) and so on.

Two quick points I want to add:

1) Nobody believes you when you write that you weren't responding to Glenn Greenwald's post. Instead of acknowledging your error in failing to post a link to his original column (and by the way: where IS that frickin' link? I still don't see it), you engage in Tony Snow-style games. I hate that stuff. I really do. After 6 years of Bush, I have no patience for it. Tell the truth.

2) I'm sure that, like Lieberman after the primary defeat, you're indulging in plenty of self-pity right now about Greenwald and Media Matters and the unappreciative leftist moonbats who insist on being mean to you (or are "bizarrely obsessed" with you -- seriously, Joe, you're a hair away from just calling Greenwald a "fag"). As someone who's enjoyed your writing in the past, I strongly urge you to resist this urge to wallow in self-pity. Bloggers like Greenwald are making establishment journalism better (just look at the way the "al-Qaeda/al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" story has changed as a result of pressure from Internet commentators and journalists at sites like Salon). Greenwald, specifically, is making you better. Accountability is a good thing. And people in positions of power shouldn't feel sorry for themselves; it's icky. It's time to raise your game.

What lister said. In spades.

Annonymous, thanks for the response. In fact, I DO read what Mr. Klein writes very closely. At the end of May, Mr. Klein lambasted anyone who opposed the supplemental appropriation, that is, he favored the supplemental. Which, by the way, extended the Iraq occupation for another year.

I then paid very close attention to Mr. Klein's writings on the authorization bill. He opposed Levin-Reed, criticizing anyone who supported it, and instead, he favored the Salazar-Alexander amendment, which he admitted was "mushy and toothless."

So Mr. Klein's actual positions, on actual legislation which would matter, in the last few weeks, has been in favor of the continuation of the permanent occupation of an Arabian country.

He intimates now that he favors "phased withdrawal." But when it actually mattered - prior to the recent Senate votes - Klein refused to ally himself with the serious efforts to end the war.

You say that Klein has indeed criticized all of what I listed?? When did he criticize the Republican obstructionism and filibustering?? When has he even seriously mentioned it? When has he criticized the warmongering? When has he criticized the cronyism?? His criticism of the Libby/commutation/stonewalling/coverup was tepid at best and virtually non-existent. He's mentioned torture exactly three times throughout nearly 5+ years of ongoing torture, extraordinary rendition, possible murder, torturer immunization and a worldwide gulag!

Like Greenwald (I hope), I actually pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to what Mr. Klein writes. And it ain't nearly as pretty of a picture as you suggest.

Mr. Klein, I think you understimate the justifiable revulsion many educated people feel at having been subjected to decades of Sabbath gasbags like yourself, displaying your over the calf socks and talking about literally anything except what any fool can plainly see is happening all around him.

The biggest constitutional crisis since the late 1850s, and all you folks can think to do is talk like racetrack touts about this or that candidate's chances to win the xyz vote. How much time was spent on transparently false outrage over the presidential blowjob, how much on support for the second ruinous military debacle of my lifetime?

Serious? Even discounting the raving psychopaths like Krauthammer, or shrinking violets like Broder, none of you have exactly distinguished yourselves in the annals of seriousness, nor earned the right to disparage anyone who, finally having been given the means to reach your ear, tells you things which any good vaudeville stage manager would have told you years ago.

Again, timorous. Thick swaths of praise surrounding a mild, passive rebuke of a sentence or two. Show me a story with "Lieberman is wrong" in the lede.

And really, after 1997, no one could have called Lieberman civil except in the sense Anthony called Brutus honorable.

Fred, that's a good point. Has anyone else noted how Falafel has grabbed on Klein's column about all those nasty witless lefty bloggers, quoting repeatedly from it?

Mission Accomplished!

Mr. Klein: in order to put yourself back in the good graces of the swampland readers you must call for Bushitler's IMPEACHMENT. Nothing short of that will suffice!

Andrew Sullivan's take is interesting:

****One of my own errors before the war was a function of being steeped in Washington policy debates - and neo-conservative arguments - for years. I had been so conditioned to suspect Iraq after 9/11 that my skepticism deserted me. I mentioned Saddam on September 12. The result was that the prelude to the Iraq war was far too easily framed by the information and biases of the Beltway elite, the Pentagon establishment, and the neocon brain-trust. Worse, we were unspeakably condescending to those on the outside who were right. We trusted far too much, and people much further away from the levers of power saw more clearly than we did. I don't think Joe was the worst offender in this camp, which is why I find the focus on him strange. But he wasn't immune, and neither was I. In so far as the blogosphere has opened up this stifling cartel of received wisdom, it is all for the better.

But this story isn't over, I suspect. And the ramifications of Iraq may well be wider than we currently realize. The questions raised by the mess in Mesopotamia are deeper than many in Washington are prepared to admit. Beltway boundaries can enforce a rote reflexiveness, a cramped conventionality on certain subjects.****

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/but-seriously.html

Yup. The whole "Think"-Tank/Politico/Journalistic complex stinks to high heaven and needs to be aired out. For instance, stuff like this is taken, almost unquestioningly, for Seriousness:

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000645

On the other hand, Paul Krugman's criticism of this kind of thing is profoundly Unserious, the work of a "fool", a "dilettante", according to Joe.

Klein should retire; it's tempting to say that he's been made a fool of by Glen Greenwald, Huffington, and Talkingpointsmemo--but the fact is, he's made a fool of himself. No wonder he hates the blogoshphere: the only thing he has going for him is his bully pulpit: he's short on facts, superficial , and cowardly and dishonest about his own past writing when proved wrong. He can get as mad as he likes, but educated and informed readers are going to abandon clowns like him for better thinkers who happen to opine in less prestigious (if that's the word for 4th-grade-level Time) popular media in droves.

...I really don't have anything to say about his bizarre obsession with me. He's entitled to his opinion...

Bizarre obsession? No, I'd say regardless of who holds the title of "TIME's political columnist" that if that columnist is either lying all the time or just too dumb to think straight, then a couple of articles documenting the problem is the right thing to do. His opinion? It's been said here over and over, there you go again. Greenwald provides examples, a narrative thread, and a clear argument. Sure, it's his opinion but it's also a factual, rational, position.

Mr. Klein,

Isn't labeling John Hagee a "right-wing nutcase minister" an illustration of the problem that Greenwald is pointing out? That is name calling, not argument.

Christians differ on the correct end-times scenario. Hagee's pre-millennial perspective is very common among evangelicals, but it is not the only end-times position. (However, Hagee's belief in a "dual covenant" theory of salvation for Jews is very unique to him and is considered borderline heretical if not outright heretical by most evangelical scholars. It does explain Hagee's peculiar obsession with Israel.) But whichever is the correct scenario is largely a theological, not a political, issue. But I don't guess this matters if you think anyone who takes Revelations seriously is a fool. Well every conservative Christian takes the book of Revelations seriously even if they arrive at different explanations. Your derisive dismissal of this is further evidence of Greenwald's point. Oh so very Beltway of you not to take seriously the beliefs of all those conservative Christian rubes in flyover country.

BTW, in the pre-millennial view Jews will not be "incinerated" in the Rapture. They will just be left behind. In fact, Hagee's unique perspective is actually friendlier to the Jews that remain.

None of the above should be interpreted to mean that I am a pre-millennialist. I have not embraced any perspective yet and remain firmly undecided. But I do think you need to get your facts straight and show some respect for the millions of conservative Christians who inhabit this country.