Broder simply proves that he really is a Beltway hack. This is not new, but he himself put the last nail in that coffin.

the security word is sleep, which is what Broder makes me do

I agree, this interview is the worst I've seen. I think.

Broder is nothing more than a superannuated has-been who has not really written anything of substance for years. It's too bad to see a once well-respected journalist become a pathetic mouthpiece for the most mendacious and corrupt administration in American history.

Usually I think of him as an old lady yelling at those damn kids for riding their bikes across the corner of her lawn. But on this one, he sounds like a misbehaving child who delights in negative attention. In other words, like the rest of the so-called media elites who write or talk about politics in the MSM.

security code: horse, as in what Broder is the ass of

There is tired and long past his shelf life, and then there is David Broder.

Ugg..

Security Code: Dinosaur, as in he is.

David Broder has dug himself further and further into a hole and now he can't get out. He has killed his reputation and tanked his credibility. He has become irrelevant. It is a sad finish to what once was a distinguished career in journalism. It must be painful for him. It sure has been painful to watch.

These "elite" pundits remind me of the "kewl" kids in high school. If it's their idea or if they decide to do or say something, that alone makes it "kewl" and everybody else is expected to follow along in lockstep (IF they want to be "kewl," too!). When someone, anyone decides to buck whatever they have declared to be acceptable, right, and proper, they throw a hissy-fit and do whatever they can to destroy the interloper. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert also come off as the high schoolers who suddenly find themselves accepted by the "kewl-kidz" and who will do anything to stay "in-with-the-in-crowd." SUCKyphants - every one of them!

I think the problem is that Reid just spoke the raw, unfiltered truth...something that is verboten in Washington. This was the cause of Broder's apoplexy -- how dare Reid break the Washington rules?

The man is a pompous ass; too clever by half. I think people are gradually realising what Paul Begala wrote in a recent piece: Broder is a gasbag. I would emphasis the gas. His credibility has been shot and he is up the Republican patoot. This is what comes from dining with Karl and eating quail.

Broder is the proponent of "higher Broderism", a governing philosophy in which you are supposed to mumble platitudes and always hew to the middle course. Since Reid does not stick with bullshit mealy mouthed pap, and is pretty combative, he does not fulfill Broder's idea of a statesman.

Greg's post read "In an interview, David Broder stands by his column attacking Harry Reid as an inept loser."
Not to be bold but what I think what Greg meant to write was "In an interview, David Broder stands by his column proving himself an irrelevant hack."

I have to quit reading about our "press corps" and our "pundit class" ant their slavish and shamless devotion to protecting the Busheviks.
I'm just getting too damned depressed. These jerks are a disgrace to what should be a noble profession.
They're all millionaires and identify and protect the very class of which they've become a part. They all have houses on Nantucket, hang out with Rove, Jack Welch and who knows who.

Check out www.dailyhowler.com and www.mediamatters.org if you haven't already.

Howler discusses Brian Williams channeling boy-love, Rush in the Dem prez debates. Williams is an admitted admirer and fan of Rush baby.

The good news is that our Bush-toadie MSM failed to stop the Dem tide in recent congressional elections and that's driving them crazy.
Barring something unforeseen, I don't think they'll stop a Dem from taking the WH in 08.

Reid just pushed the Overton Window across, and now Broder can't see anything any more.

Both Broder and the Washington Post are nothing but propaganda instruments for the ruling oligarchy - - a paper infested with operation mockingbird plants . . . their bended knee to all things Bush has been and is sickening, but they get paid nicely to sell the rest of us out . . .

Repeat after me: Joseph Alsop

In America it is considered rude to tell the truth in public and also rude to lie to someone like
Broder in private. THAT is why Broder is upset.
Reid's great mistake was telling the truth.

My understanding is that the reverse often
holds in other
places. I think I am starting to like the other
places better.

He becomes more irrlevant with each column where he attacks with "annonymous" and "un-named senior official" sources that are nothing more than op-eds. Possibly dictated by Fred Hiatt. There is so much that is turning the WaPo into a mirror of the WaTi. It's their paper and if they want to turn it into the rag its becoming so be it. But as long as they have a comments section they will be castigated . Especially the crap Broder wrote about Reid and the "war is lost comment." Do those at the Post ever go back to see the erroneous prognistications put forth by their writers and op-ed contributors? Tom Tommorrw has a cartoon of some prominent proponents of invading Iraq and their comments at the start and after the President was on the carrier declaring the American and Coalition forces have "prevailed" 4 years ago tomorrow. How many months have we heard the President and Iraq War affiocondos "we are making progress?" Then there is 6 month Friedman. Christ, these people have been wrong so many times that if they were working the register at Wal-Mart they would be fired and probably prosecuted. And they keep on doing it. Why do they still have a platform? Codeword fire as in what they are playing with.

I really don't know/care what Broder's personal hangup is, except to say that he's indicative of an arrogant media elite which, even after it is proven wrong (as those 50 Senators proved him wrong) - it still insists it's right.

What can you say about clueless blowhards like Broder? Except to say that he doesn't have to tell the truth, or care what the public thinks, because he's a fixture at the WP. That's the real problem. There is so much dead wood like Border - people who have made their careers by kissing the behinds of the corporate powers-that-be - that they long ago got out of the habit of telling the truth. Finally, just like Border, they come to revel in their power to lie to the public, just like pigs that revel in the mud they kick up in people's faces.

Broder was just being "tongue in cheek" when he called on Reid to resign. You gotta love that. I guess his whole column was satirical. Maybe his whole oeuvre is one subtle comedic work of performance art. That would explain a lot. He sure has a dry sense of humor though.

All Dems should freeze Broder and be cool to any associate till Aug. or Sept. when the war will be revisited..

Um, wasn't the essential point of Broder's column that Democrats were embarrassed by Reid, and that he was on his last legs with his own party? So, like, doesn't the fact that ALL of the notoriously fractious Democratic Senators said "Nuh-unh!" make an impact on His Broderishness?

It's not about whether Broder's against the war, it's about him just making up stuff about the political situation in DC.

I think it's funny as hell. These guys would aruge that the earth is flat, shit ain't brown, and Bush's "war" is not lost, if the criticism came from anyone outside the bubble. For those inside the bubble, well, life is swell. And the rest of us can only watch in amazement and amusement as Bushco. et. al. sycophants, sails the ship of state over the edge and into the brown abyss.

Security code: broderlicksbush

This seems to be his summation:

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

Um. So. Reid says that the military strategy can't win but the diplomatic strategy can win. Hm. As I recall Democrats and DF hippies were saying exactly this before the war started.

security code is female... has anyone noticed how during this time of conservative ascendancy that female=loser and male=winner? All that crap about Edwards being the first female president and his 'pretty' haircut, him being a "faggot" ... lovely .... schoolyard taunting by the bullies that brought you george bush. the worst president in american history...

I'm not going to harsh any longer on Broder, lord knows I have done enough of that and then some.

Broder is irrelevant, as is much of the pundit class. In ye olden days of Pong and rotary dial phones, mass media was very top-down and if you wanted to get interpretation and context for events of the day, you naturally consulted the wise pundit-sages of your local newspaper's op-ed pages.

Today, there are blogs and my local newspaper's editorial board doesn't get to choose which of a very limited set of writers I can read. I get to choose whomever I want. Goddess bless the intertubes.

Broder should be thankful for the inertia of newspapers, that he still has a job. He is an LP in a CD world. When the current crop of pundit-wankers passes, I sincerely hope that newspapers forego hiring new pundits to replace them; instead, the newspapers should drop the syndicate and publish themselves (with permission of course) excerpts from bloggers of whatever political (or non-political) persuasion they wish.

Security code: regret, as in I regret to inform you Mr. Broder that you are as dated as a flying toaster screen saver.

Greg,

Beggin your pardon, but I don't think you should say no more Broder. Frankly, I think you should stay on his sorry old ass until he clears up the questions you've asked. What kind of nonsense is this he is spouting to E & P? His comments indicate he is living in la la land in terms of his comments about Reid which were utterly false, the public's attitude toward the war and his reasons for writing those calumnies about Reid.

Broder is suffering from the same, universally appreciable affliction that has shackled John McCain -- he's passed his expiration date.

I've never been much of a fan of either man, but it's a shame to see once savvy, astute men of "substance" devolve into belligerent, recalcitrant fools.

Security Code: eejit

We need a new "Dunciad" for people like Broder.

Of course, it doesn't help matters that Broder proves how irrelevant he is with each new column he writes. Seriously, I don't understand where he comes up with this stuff. It's not a matter of whether I agree or not; it simply has no basis in reality. Bush is not regaining his footing, nor will he ever; no sensible human being can say that Harry Reid is as bumbling and inept as Abu Gonzales.

security code: every, as in every so often even a blind squirrel finds an acorn... except for Broder, it would seem.

Re "My guess is that Broder probably more or less agrees with Reid's general critique of the war, too".

Yup. Just today:

On the April 30 edition of XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, Washington Post columnist David Broder asserted that it was "really doubtful" President Bush would be able "to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq.

Source:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300008?f=h_top

Perhaps Broder thinks it is highly irresponsible to think (or say) the war in Iraq is militarily lost when it is merely "really doubtful" that we will win.

So I guess when Broder cites the "long list of senators of both parties" who are disgruntled by Reids comments, he must mean the Republican party and the Connecticut for Lieberman party? Actually, Lieberman signed the letter as well. I guess he means the Republicans and the Neo-Cons.

Does anyone have a copy (or a pointer to) Harry Reid's actual comment, in its entirety, not taken out of context or as it was reported by the pundits?

Security Code = good, as in Good for you, Harry!

How's this for an explanation; broder attacking Reid is just another republican protecting his party and president.

A lot of these pundits were treated like rock stars in the 1990's, and they let it all go to their heads. They never really were intelligent and interesting, just colorful.

They are like the bands who are coasting on their hits from 30 years ago, who haven't put out a good album in a dog's age.

Broder is a joke, only he doesn't realise it.

Ken Silverstein over at Harper's does a little digging in Broders writings over the past 25 years, trying to find the presumed golden era of The Dean's career...

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/sb-20070430imui

Renato: Broder "is an LP in a CD world."

I like that.

David Broder wears adult diapers. And he has bad breath. And the hair growing out of his ears is about six inches long.

I stand by these statements.

Broder is like the Poison/Winger/Ratt of pundits, going on tour and realising that they can't sell out a 5000 seat arena...

I think that Broder's comments can be understood as coming from a person who was born in 1929, who was about 12 when WWII started, who graduated from college in 1951, and who reached political maturity during the Cold War. I think he believes that somehow foreign policy is supposed to be done by consensus and when there isn't a consensus, he doesn't understand. He especially doesn't understand it when that consensus is challenged by Democrats supported by the netroots.

He isn't equipped to handle a political environment where people he doesn't know and doesn't think are important have an increasing presence in politics. That wasn't happening during the 1950s, or even during the 1990s. The fact that it is happening now is beyond his comprehension.

Here is something else that is beyond his comprehension: the WP is losing readers for both its weekday and Sunday edition. I wonder if he understands that the internet is the cause of both of these events?

Someone give Dean Broder the Heimlich Manuever to dislodge the cocktail weiner from his windpipe. Hte lack of oxygen is causing some serious brain dammage.

-GSD

damage...

I can't help noticing that Broder's responses to E & P were: non-sequitor, stunningly unfunny joke, non-sequitor.

That's the kind of insight that we have all come to expect from The Dean.

Was anyone able to make any sense out of Broder's column this weekend about how McCain "broke" with Bush in McCain's announcement of his candidacy?

Broder is no kewl kid. He's more like the pompous old high school principle in any number teenage comedies. And he's shouting louder and louder because everyone's realized he's nothing but an old fraud and he can't enforce his silly old rules anymore.

code: past

"Was anyone able to make any sense out of Broder's column this weekend about how McCain "broke" with Bush in McCain's announcement of his candidacy?"

Um, one more stunning example of McCain's maverick mentality, just as when Colbert noted that he's such a maverick he eats salad with a spoon?

You've touched on what seems to me the plausible objection Broder has to Reid, and that's the lack of decorum in making such frank statements. For years Broder has been more concerned with process than substance, and Reid's outspokenness offends his sense of propriety. Besides his default support for Bush, it's another reason why Broder has nothing to say in these benighted times of national crisis.

Shorter Broder: Reid's comment was truthful and popular, but he shouldn't have said it.

Its really not even about decorum. Bush, Cheney, etc practically called Pelosi a traitor for going to Syria. Where was Broder's condemnation of those attacks?

It does come down to "there are some things that Democrats shouldn't point out about Republicans and their policies."

I suspect Broder would be much happier living in another time and place, say in the imperial court of Czar Nicholas II.

Broder is an asshole. Go read 49 pages of comments to his "column" 99%of which tell himn to blow it out his ass and retire.

How this schmuck ever became the "Dean" of the Washington Press Corpse is beyond me. Click my name below and go over to my blog, and you can read a piece Broder wrote 38 years ago defending Nixon that could have been republished today, just substituting Bush for Nixon.

This idiot was BORN with his head up his ass.

"One last crack at David Broder -- promise!"

This is one promise I'll forgive you for breaking in advance -- promise!

project much, David?

Um, wasn't the essential point of Broder's column that Democrats were embarrassed by Reid, and that he was on his last legs with his own party? So, like, doesn't the fact that ALL of the notoriously fractious Democratic Senators said "Nuh-unh!" make an impact on His Broderishness?
It's not about whether Broder's against the war, it's about him just making up stuff about the political situation in DC.
Posted by: biggerbox
Date: April 30, 2007 04:06 PM

I agree.
This is Broder's yellowcake moment.
Why did he think this was true?
Who fed him the 'intellegence'
Did he lie? or make it up?
Did a Democrat lie or fold when confronted by Harry Reid?
Was it Lieberman? Or maybe one of Lieberman's consultants?

I think there might be a bigger story here.

David Broder is poised for a journalistic comeback...

The irony here is that it's Broder who is "inept" and becoming an "embarrassment" maybe the Democrats should start pushing the meme that HE is the Alberto Gonzales of the Washington press corp.

Theodore has it exactly right: Broder IS the Alberto Gonzales of the Washington press corp. And I stand by my argument: Broder is inept. If the readers could impeach a columnist we the people would impeach Broder for sheer incompetence.

Broder is really funny. It takes a loser to know a loser. Broder has carried this adminstration bucket of water for 6 yrs now and the lies are coming back to bite them. If Broder is smart he will shut his mouth. Hey Broder look at Gonzo, Tenent, Katrina should I say more, oh yea, what about the f--k up in Iraq.

I think what Mr Broder is saying is that Senator Reid is a liability in that his colleagues have to waste a lot of time "explaining" his off-the-cuff remarks and defending him.

Simple enough, I'd say.

You may or may not agree with Mr Broder but attacking him _ad hominem_ isn't going to sway anyone's opinion and will probably just cause people to dig in.

To quote Trex over at Firedoglake David Broder has gone "from Beltway Godhead to Bleating Dickhead in just a few short, easy steps"

Code word "public" as in David Broder made a public fool of himself by comparing Reid to Gonzales. In doing so he demonstrated he didn't understand either man.

Whatever Broder is, and I'm no fan, Reid genuinely sucks as a spokesman. Really, can't the democrats find someone a little more on target than this guy? For example, When he wants to counterattack Cheney he says 'I'n not going to debate someone with a low approval rating' Really...Really dim. Is that what counts Cheney's "approval rating"? Maybe in Beltway Land, but in the rest of the country you would be better off reminding people how often this idiot has been wrong in the last few years...and keep reminding them of that over and over again...in fact everytime Cheney opens his mouth. Pelosi isn't much better by the way, she always looks like she is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Why don't they let someone else do the talking.

Dale said:

"When he wants to counterattack Cheney he says 'I'm not going to debate someone with a low approval rating.' Really...Really dim."

Actually, Dale, what Reid said was:

"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with someone who has a 9 percent approval rating."

That's a MUCH better line, don't you think? Maybe you just don't have a feel for comedy...

PS: I'll agree that if Reid had said what you had him saying, it WOULD have been really, really dim.

David Broder is like every refrigerator in New Orleans in September 2005. Please have sense enough not to open.

Security Code: waste, no explanation needed.

Same defense that Condi used, brought up all these statistics and minimalized the opposition but then says he stands by his decision but under what premise? It challenges the authority and convention nothing else.

I say let us look deeper into Broder and Andrea Mitchell and others who seem to make weird statements about the coming down of this authoritarian regime. Is it that they are not really objective, are they some sort of sleeper cell doing the bidding of the power elite?

Broder is essentially conservative and maybe lazy to boot. He has opposed term limits and anything which would cause him to develop new sources and update his Rolodex. He is just too comfortable with the way things operate. The old dog doesn't want to have to learn any new tricks and he certainly doesn't want anyone like Harry Reid upseting "the way things are done ( or is it not done? ) in Washington.

Does he have a brain? His column basically said "Harry Reid sucks, and his colleagues think so."

Then the colleagues, ALL of them basically called Broder a liar in his own paper the next day and he is... what amused?

Harry Reid should not have said the "War is lost." What he should have said is that Bush and company lost the War, if that is what we are choosing to call the occupation of Iraq.
As an aside, disparagement of Broder as old, antiquated, past expiration date, ugly, or otherwise has nothing to do with the stupidity of his stated views. His views are much more likely to be attributable to talking points fed him by Karl than from Alzheimer's.

I don't think Broder's age has much, if anything, to do with it. After all, he's less than five years older than Bill Moyers, who was born two months apart from David Halberstam. Joseph Campbell was lucid until he died in his early eighties.

The good stereotype is that at his age, one is thinking about legacy. Broder doesn't seem to care about that. I think it's a case of someone who's caught up in the Washington Beltway club, and won't move outside it to see what's really going on. As others have said, he's been heading in this direction for quite awhile.

Harry Reid broke with conventional wisdom. He is not following the orthodoxy laid out by "Democratic" consultants. Following proper form is more important than any side issues, like speaking the truth or serving your constituency. Until Reid learns this he must be belittled and marginalized by the headmaster. Does he think he is too cool for school?

"tongue-in-cheek' in a pigs ass.

"I think what Mr Broder is saying is that Senator Reid is a liability in that his colleagues have to waste a lot of time "explaining" his off-the-cuff remarks and defending him".

Which senators? What specific statements defending Reid have they felt compelled to offer up? And which "journalists" posed those questions? Britt Hume? Chris Wallace?

It seems to me that, at the very least, Broder is confused. Confusion comes with old age (I know from experience); maybe it's time he retired.

Of course, what Harry Reid said was:

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=272702&

I told President Bush that after five years, more than 3,300 American soldiers lost and billions depleted from the treasury, we must change course.

Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day, and now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war.

We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began.

And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course.

No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and praise, more importantly, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

The supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support offers just that. It includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our security.

It offers a new path, a new direction forward. If we put politics aside, I believe we can find a way to make America safer and stronger.

I am not making this up -- Broder's argument is essentially that Harry Reid is hurting the troops' feelings.

Such are the concerns of the "serious" foreign policy wonks among the fake centrists.

People like that will ride their shared fantasy right up until the moment the gun barrel is thrust into their faces.

As we can see it plainly happening.

The only thing that need be said is that Broder is an old fool. Emphasize 'old' and 'fool'. Old fool. Did I say, old fool? Yes, old fool. I did say old fool. Phew, for a moment there I thought I didn't say old fool. What an old fool.

"I say let us look deeper into Broder and Andrea Mitchell and others who seem to make weird statements about the coming down of this authoritarian regime. Is it that they are not really objective, are they some sort of sleeper cell doing the bidding of the power elite?"

Posted by: RWN

RWN, I really do think that you are on to something here. I don't think some of these MSM insidethebubble types are as clueless as they are coming across. Maybe Broder, but not AM, for example. Seriously, they have been bought and paid for.

And, frankly, kudos to Harry Reid!! and to the rest of the DEMS for coming to his support. He deserves it.

The war in Iraq was won 4 years ago,
according to the Commander-in-Chief cum pilot. The question is why we did not claim victory in Iraq then and leave.

The answer is easy, Mr. Broder, just as all of the Washington Post, are ardent supporters of the Bush regime for the very simple reason they are both, first and formost, above all else, America be damned, Zionists.
Oh, we're good enough to provide the warm going in, bodies in Iraq and our tax remittances to Israel are into the billions. Mr. Broder and his fellow neocons are just afraid that Democrats won't provide the carte blanche support for Israel that they have gotten used to under the Bush Regime. The Bush Regime knew what it was doing....make no mistake about their invasion of Iraq.
The only tragic losers are the American people.

Can we stop calling him just "Dean", and give him the more appropriate "Dean Wormer" appellation? The comparison seems too good to let pass.

Broder is so used to "nuanced bull shit" from politicians, that he can't handle and report straight talk from one of them. In other words, he can't handle the truth, and that is hurtful to this beltway "has been"

Broder may be ready for pasture but apparently he is not alone in his view of Reid.

From Thomas M. DeFrank's column in the New York Daily News (5/1/2007).

"Don't believe all those whispers that George Bush is dead in the water politically. That's a gross exaggeration--at least as long as Harry Reid is running the opposition.

As the Iraq war becomes ever more divisive and heartbreaking., the lame-duck President and Seante majority leader pursue a high-stakes game of 'Amateur Hour' from the oppositie ends of Pennsylvania Ave. Even their friends know it."

There are two questions raised. Is Broder and DeFrank just reflecting the Washington view, and not their own, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Secondly, do those within Washington who make these sort of judgments out of touch with Democrats, or anyone else outside of Washington?

Mark,
You will not that I used the single ' rather than the " which indicates that I was quoting him in substance not verbatim. I do not think there is a substantive difference in the quote versus my paraphrase. The point in Reid thinks what is important is Cheney's approval ratings not his constant lying. No one outside of the Beltway gives a squat about approval ratings, everyone hates a liar, except a significant part of the Republican Party apparently.

The point is, the Demos need to learn to stay on message like the GOP. Everytime Cheney speaks at least 4 democrats somewhere need to stand in front of a microphone and call him a liar. Over and Over and Over again. That's how it works.

As for the LP-CD remark, I think a better contrast would be LP vs iTunes....

For those looking for one simple, comprehensive way to sum up a great deal of the "why" behind just about everything this administration and their rabid supporters are doing, or want done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

As someone who remembers Vietnam, I was against this war from the beginning and I believe this is the the most arrogant administration and least competent in my lifetime. But I agree with Broder that Reid while a good man is terribly ineffective. When the Republicans attack all too often Reid retorts by whining first which becomes the media sound bite. The Democrats have all the good argumentson their side but Harry is simply ineffectual at making them. What surprises me is the attacks on Broder who has been a decent journalist for a long time and has writtensome of the most damning columns about this administration. I agree that his comparison with Gonzalez was a little much but his overall point from my perspective is correct. The neo cons are thrilled that Harry Reid is their opposition.