Wednesday, May 24, 2006

David Broder Salivates Over Clinton Bedroom Gossip

Boy, they're coming fast and furious lately. You swat one down, two more take their place. I'm referring to 'elite' reporters of course, specifically those who've decided that Bush's poll numbers aren't incentive enough to stop belittling and berating Democrats.

Joe Klein, Mark Halperin & co., Elisabeth Bumiller, Patrick Healy, Tim Russert, the list goes on. Joining the crowd is David Broder, who isn't content with Healy's puerile peek into the Clinton bedroom. Broder wants more:

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

The closing anecdote concerned a December fundraiser where Clinton praised his wife and bestowed a kiss on her forehead, after which she recalled their 30 years together and said, "I'm so grateful to you, Bill."

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."

Mr. Broder, here's an easy question: who determines what is and isn't a hot topic? When cable news nets spend countless hours discussing a missing girl in Aruba, is it a hot topic because the viewers want it or because it's been shoved down their gullets? When Swift Boat liars are given an unlimited forum to smear a decorated vet, was it a hot topic to begin with or does it become one after the fact? And when Patrick Healy decides to dissect the Clinton marriage, was it a hot topic before he wrote it or is it a hot topic now that people like you amplify his filth?

"The very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage" says one thing alone: damn the polls and damn the public, the media want to suck up to Bush and stomp on the Dems, to sanctify McCain and slander Hillary, to re-Gore Al and to celebrate Rudy, to mock Kerry and to laud Bill Frist.

Mr. Broder, the "elephant in the room" you refer to at the conclusion of your piece has nothing to do with the Clintons. It's this: that you and your ilk are prisoners of your own storylines, hustling your wares to a public that has moved past you.

4 Comments:

Blogger Progressive Christian said...

Once again, you nail it, this time right on Broder's pointy little head. I am so sick of Broder's sanctimoniousness, the whole idea that somehow he is "the dean of Washington political reporters". All that proves is he knows how to suck up to those in power, like his protege Bob Woodward. Keep writing it, seep speaking it, keep b logging it - get the word out, the Emperor has no clothes, and neither do the fashion reporters for the Imperial Press - they are all naked!

5/25/2006 11:02 AM  
Blogger Charlie Henrickson said...

On the money, Peter. I just wish I could read something like this in the print medium. (I can never quite get over the gloomy suspicion that blogs preach to the converted.)

The last sentence is beautiful. I hope you're right about the public, but I doubt it.

5/25/2006 2:34 PM  
Blogger Peter Daou said...

Thank you both.

5/25/2006 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would Broder's sanctimoniousness have bothered you if he had zeroed in on a right-wing politician? Are you opposed in principle or do you just take issue with his choice of target?

6/08/2006 7:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home