WaPo's Kornblut: Centrist, Pro-War Dems Come From Party's "National Security" Wing
April 30, 2007 -- 10:46 AM EST // //
Matthew Yglesias is right to say that this profile of Hillary pollster Mark Penn by Anne Kornblut is highly worth reading. But check out this passage in particular:
Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began."Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.
The "national security" wing of the party? Looks like Hiatt is moonlighting on the copy desk again...
Seriously -- I have no idea whether this passage was penned by the author or whether it was the result of some editing atrocity. But really, this reads like it was written by Joe Lieberman, who suggested not long ago that Dems opposed to the Iraq war came from the party's "anti-security wing."
Putting aside the absurdity of actually buying into such an inane construct -- is there any one left aside from Dick Cheney and Victor Davis Hanson who believes that the Iraq War is proving anything but completely counter to our national security interests? -- this can't possibly be the sort of thing the professional journalists who edit the Post want in their news pages. Can it?
Update: A quick clarification. A commenter below notes that this article is riddled with the usual innuendo about Hillary and concludes that this is just more "liberal media" bashing of the Clintons. Let me be clear: I basically agree with that analysis. When I said the piece was highly worth reading, I meant that solely because it does tell us a lot about Penn -- someone we should want to know more about for all sorts of reasons. Please don't read that as an endorsement of the piece's murkily sourced innuendo about Hillary. It isn't that at all.