Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Washington Post Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin Edition)

The Lord knows that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not my favorite Democratic politician. She is very smart, extremely hard-working, immensely public-spirited, has her head screwed on straight, and understands what our national and global interests are. She is also not very good at telling which of the people around her are telling things straight and which are telling her pleasing lies. (Of course, George W. Bush is infinitely worse than she is along any possible dimension.

But surely she deserves better than David Broder. David Broder talks about the "two sides" of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The first side: she knows and cares and has thought deeply and widely about public policy:

The Shadow of a Marriage: The two sides of Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the opposites that make her potential presidential candidacy such a gamble -- came into sharp focus Tuesday morning at the National Press Club. For the better part of an hour, the senator from New York held forth in a disquisition on energy policy that was as overwhelming in its detail as it was ambitious in its reach.... For the next 45 minutes, she read a wonkish text that covered every aspect of the energy situation, down to and including a description of the "geologic sequestration" potential for reducing global warming and making better use of coal....

It turns out that the senator has been thinking about energy issues for 35 years -- since she edited a fellow student's paper on OPEC at Yale Law School. And with her disciplined mind, she can fit separate pieces -- everything from mileage standards for cars to biomass and wind power -- into a rational plan that will, she says, not only move the nation substantially toward energy independence but improve living standards for almost every American.

The tone was not partisan; there were bows to Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana for his proposal to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and a polite challenge to President Bush to help the U.S. auto industry meet its foreign competition.

At the end of her talk, little time remained for questions, and the first three simply asked for clarification of points in the energy plan....

The second side: David Broder and his friends like to sneak into her bedroom, go through her hamper, and sniff her underwear:

But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times. The article, by Patrick Healy... touched only lightly on the former president's friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach.... But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.

The Clintons, according to the Times, urged friends not to answer questions about the relationship and declined to be interviewed.... Three times in the question-and-answer session, she referred to her husband as "Bill," praising him for seeing that his library in Little Rock incorporated a lot of energy-saving features.

Other than that, the elephant in the room went unmentioned.

God forbid that David Broder should actually write about public policy. He can't, after all, listen to a 4000 word speech without finding it "overwhelming in its detail."

I'm swinging around to the view that there won't *be* a Washington Post in fifteen years. What value will it offer?

Comments

[howard]

there may or may not be a washington post, but what i guarantee you is that there won't be an oped page.

as i find reason to note every week or two, whatever else we can say about political blogging, we can certainly see that it renders op-ed punditry economically useless. who buys the wapo to read broder? or samuelson? or krauthammer? or hoagland?

we get better, more frequent work here in the blogosphere, from people who know and care....

[David Lloyd-Jones]

My guess is that the rumors about Bill Clinton being involved with Belinda Stronach are dear Belinda's work: she's tryiing to puff herself up as a political figure.

[John Emerson]

As I've been saying, young Sulzberger and young Graham are like the bloodless, lifeless heirs in Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher" -- the last feeble remnants of a once-great dynasty whose house is about to collapse into ruins.

[Lee A. Arnold]

I think it's true that if Hillary Clinton runs her marriage is likely to become Topic A, and we can thank David Broder for pointing out that our leading journalists are scumbags enough to make sure of it.

[Matt]

At least, this time around, the right-wingers (and yes, that includes David Broder) are meeting some resistance to their smears.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's The New Republic showing the same aversion to writing about policy:

http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com/2006/05/in-dark-to-be-sure.html

I expected better from Broder, though as I write this I'm not sure why.

[Greg VA]

Gotta give props to David Broder: it takes a boatload of chutzpah to point at something and simultaneously declare it a problem because everyone's looking at it.

[sglover]

Here in the DC area, the commercials that the WaPo runs to persuade people to subscribe say not one word about its OpEd stable of "talent". Instead, they tend to focus on the local event listings in the "Weekend" section.

[bakho]

Maybe Broder is watching too much Ali G? This reminds me of an interview by Ali G of Newt Gingerich (of all people) and they are discussing whether or not a female could be president. It ends up with Ali G asking the hypothetical question, "But what if she fell in love with Saddam Hussein?". Of course, Newt insists that the type of woman that would be elected president would never fall in love with Saddam Hussein.

I can hear the MTV question now, "Bloomers or a thong?"

[Nan]

"I'm swinging around to the view that there won't *be* a Washington Post in fifteen years."

From your lips to God's ears.

WP serves the ruling Oligarchy. If they go under it will be a good thing for democracy. We might see legitimate journalism filling the void.

[liberal]

"She is very smart, extremely hard-working, immensely public-spirited, has her head screwed on straight, and understands what our national and global interests are."

Nope, given her attitude about the current impasse with Iran.

[stillSad]

"I'm swinging around to the view that there won't *be* a Washington Post in fifteen years."

Yup. I said it a couple of days ago on the King Kong thread:

"It's true. The flagship media are irremediably broken.

The newspapers we grew up with--the NYT and WaPo that used to go out, collect facts, kick over rocks and document the bugs crawling under them--they're dead now."

And I agree that they will lose their op-ed market first (have lost).

But the idea that the blogs will always be parasitical on the MSM? The idea that blogs can only opine, never do original reporting?

Josh Marshall is proving that is wrong, too. His TPM empire is breaking stories, fresh stories, and busting them wide open.

Look closely, boys--we've got a Sulzberger, Graham, or Hearst in the making. We could be looking at the glory days of investigative reporting, resurrected.

Let's hope he has a long and productive run of doing Jeffersonian good for the country. If his grand-kids turn into coporate shills or power-clique wannabe suck-ups, well--we'll kick their butts then, or whatever replaces the blogs will do it.

[Buce]

Brad, no real quarrel with this current round, but isn't it time to say at least a word about the most egregious gasbag in business journalism, i.e., Lou Dobbs? Listening to him natter away on the Senate immigration vote, I find myself wondering what, if anything, distinguishes him from Bill O'Reilly--except that O'Reilly is sporadically funny.

[Robert Waldmann]

Maybe they'll have to cut The Washington Post down to a weekly Magaziner. I have no idea what basis your criticism of Clinton would have and Ira rely disagree with you. Damn why can't I type tonight ?

[twice around]

Brad deleted the post where I asked why Hillary didn't talk about cutting US dependancy on coffee beans by 50% by 2025.

Was this a silly question to be taken down. Can DeLong, an economist, explain why it is obvious that the security of the US has anything to do with what percent of our oil is imported?

Brad has blasted Hillary in the past for not understanding health care. Why is she correct now with energy policy?

[wkwillis]

twice around
We can shift from coffee to chocolate, or hell, even back to tea like before 1776. It would take about a month. How do we shift back to coal in less than five years?

[Glen Tomkins]

Your answer is in your heading

What value will WaPo have in 15 years? The Hand Unseen had it right; two minas, a shekel and a parsee.

[Patrick Taylor]

Budgie cages will always need liner ...

[andres]

"I'm swinging around to the view that there won't *be* a Washington Post in fifteen years."

I don't care what they do with the Post, but they will have to pry Toles, Oliphant, and Carlson from my cold dead fingers. And why on earth did they let Jules Pfeiffer go? Sigh.

[twice around]

So can someone tell me why I should sleep better at night knowing that we cut imports of overseas oil 50% in 2025? How does that make the US with some 10,000 nukes and by far the largest military in the world more secure?

Clinton should be told this makes no sense as a policy goal. But Brad supports her. Why?

-- remo williams

[Randall]

Remo Williams is a lying and mean troll, who is continually removed from the blog.

[twice around]

Stay on topic, Randall...

Delong deletes posts that disagree with him. Period.

Still, it would be interesting to hear why he agrees with Hillary here. Why does reducing oil imports 50% by 2025 improve U.S. security?

Something tells me that Brad is wayyy too political to answer this, so any one can anyone else explain?

And Randall, I'm the nicest guy you've never met.

-- remo williams

[Randall]

Every sentence you write drips meanness.

[andres]

"So can someone tell me why I should sleep better at night knowing that we cut imports of overseas oil 50% in 2025? How does that make the US with some 10,000 nukes and by far the largest military in the world more secure?"

The level of wilful, persevering ignorance in the above passage is utterly breathtaking. And our national security is in the hands of people who get elected by voters like this. My guess is that Brad deletes posts like the above not because they disagree with his viewpoints but because he's too embarrassed to let english-speaking foreigners reading these threads believe that such thinking is even a substantial minority of the electorate in this country.

[Darren]

twice around:

If you are going to advance a contrarian view, you should at least anticipate the most obvious objections...

Relying on Russia, Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to get you to work every morning maybe leaves you a touch vulnerable, no? The US has 10000 nukes, yes.... but I'm not sure that helps: is the US going to nuke anyone who turns the oil tap off?