davidbroder@washpost.com knows what news is. It's a "HOT TIP ON CLINTON"

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-25-06 02:32 PM
Original message

davidbroder@washpost.com knows what news is. It's a "HOT TIP ON CLINTON"

Forget the news! David Broder wants a Hot Tip on Clinton!!

I just read the sleezeball-quality column by Mr Broder ( davidbroder@washpost.com ) about Clinton's speech on the environment and how to fight global warming. Broder was sent to the event, presumedly because it was a major policy speech by a leading contender for the presidency. His conclusion about the speech: because no one was talking about the Clintons' marriage, the Clintons' marriage is a taboo subject we all need to talk about.

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.

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, 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.

There's nothing there about the topic of Sen. Clinton's speech at all! Broder ( davidbroder@washpost.com ) writes more about the substance of her health care plan from 12 years ago than he does about her global warming proposals. His only mention of the substance of her speech is to state, as an aside, that her "wonkish text" described "the 'geologic sequestration' potential for reducing global warming and making better use of coal."

But that's written just to underscore how boring all this science stuff is. Then Broder ( davidbroder@washpost.com ) goes back to obsessing about the Clintons' marriage. There's a palpable disappointment in Broder's writing, as if he didn't find any dirt on this outing ("The Clintons, according to the Times, urged friends not to answer questions about the relationship and declined to be interviewed -- except for a joint statement that 'they do everything they can to be together.' ") Note to the Washington Post: Wonkette does this sort of thing better for a whole lot less money.

I don't think David Broder understood the topic he was sent to cover. There's nothing wrong with being too dense to understand global warming. He could just tell his assignment editor, "I'm sorry, I just don't understand these scientific things about how cutting back on pollution can slow down environmental degradation that could permanently alter how liveable our planet is. I only understand how extramarital blowjobs can cause people to gossip about you. For years. Maybe you should send a reporter along who can write about the speech instead of the nine year old blow job story."

That would be a refreshingly mature thing for Broder ( davidbroder@washpost.com ) to do, instead of going to an event and, when no one talks about the one thing he understands, conclude that the marriage question is "the elephant in the room." What a bonehead. The sleeziest part of it, of course, is when he drags the name of Belinda Stronach into his article. It's clear that Broder has nothing, nada, on any possible relationship between Mr Clinton and Ms Stronach. Throwing the name out there is his wink-nudge way of asking the world "Hey, does anyone have any dirt on this pair? Please give the tip to me instead of the National Inquirer."

I'm sorry, Dave. But the Inquirer pays money for the trash it digs up. You can't compete.

Personally, I think someone should email Mr Broder ( davidbroder@washpost.com ) and let him know that he's doing a poor job covering issues that matter to the country and is paying far too much attention to rumors about guy who once used to be interesting to talk about. I'll do it. I'll even name my email "Hot Tip on Clinton!" so that he'll know to open it up. I'll be polite of course, because I'm always polite. But he's behaving badly and taking the lazy way out of doing his job. He's got nothing on Mr Clinton and is openly begging for gossip. No one talks about his obsession and so it's got to be an unspoken taboo. He goes to cover a policy speech and instead can only write about what he knows from ten years ago--presumedly the last time he paid attention to something other than what he himself was thinking.

How sad. By the way, Broder's email is davidbroder@washpost.com .