According to what Klein says about Broder, correct me if I'm wrong, his method is to seek out low information voters, and then he declares that their opinion is what counts. Seems to me that's backwards journalism. It would be useful if that were a starting point to a column or article explaining why these people think the way they do and tried to correct it; but from what I've seen, Broder thinks his job is to bring politicians down to this lowest common denominator. (The LCD from the point of view of facts, of course; in terms of language, only the most polite and decorous exchanges will do for this forty-plus year resident of the Beltway who, when convenient, portrays himself as a homespun Midwesterner )

It's an illuminating insight in the High Broderist worldview, actually. Everything is like the movie "Dave", where balancing the budget is easy if everybody just agrees to work together (a friend of my father's, a lawyer (and GOP donor) with a very successful corporate practice in Chicago, thought that scene was the gospel truth.

From there, we move on to the notion that Iraq is easy to solve, if Democrats and Republicans work together. For Broder, the problem, and the solution, are not found in Baghdad, but at a joint meeting of AEI fellows and Brookings' resident scholars, presided over by Joe Lieberman and John McCain, with Himself approvingly taking notes in the back row.

Then over to Sally Q's for orange blossoms and shrimp toast to celebrate.

I will say one nice thing about Broder: He never tries to prove his regular-guyness by obsessively making references to "his Bills" or "his Yankees" the way a certain other bloated fathead pundit does, and it's hard to imagine him giving that compulsive "we're all pals here" chuckle that Russert seems to end every interview with (or did before I had to stop watching him about four years ago).

Not all of us who drink Grey Goose martinis all day are bad people.

Okay, I just wish I could sit around drinking Grey Goose martinis all day.

But that "perplexed blinking" does just say it all, doesn't it, about Broder and the Broderists? Conservatives love to tell that story about Pauline Kael, I believe it was, stupefied that her candidate (Lindsey?) had lost a recent election because "everyone I knew voted for him". Edsall's perplexed blinking is Kael's "everyone I know".

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but I can't resist.

Jake: What's the 'centrist' solution to Iraq? Or do you just go on blind faith that there must be one?

I think that's the whole problem with the Bush era. People have had it drummed into there heads for so long that "bipartisanship" in and of itself is the Holy Grail of politics, that now that one party has gone completely off the rails, as the Bush Republican party has, they flounder in desperation at the thought of having to acknowledge that a) there are some problems that have no solution, "centrist", "bipartisan" or otherwise; and b) those awful Democrats that nice old Uncle Reagan told us weren't real Americans are actually right about something.

So I shouldn't have held back from pointing out that it's WWII vets who are called the greatest generation, and referring to yourself that way costs you membership in any case?

Does explain the sudden appearance of the odious Ceci Connelly over there the other day

Colbert is an old improv actor, a legend in his own time for his ability to stay in character (whatever your politics, if you have any appreciation of acting, his performance at that DC Media Prom last year was amazing).

He met his match. The disparity between his character's politics and "Hanoi Jane" Fonda just made it that much more fun to watch, IMHO. Though sticking her tongue in his one good ear was over the line. Maybe she didn't know.

I'll give them Bloomberg as a liberal before I'll give them Russert. He's one of theirs.

No mention of Bill teh Cat. I smell a corporate media cover up.

Don't publish anymore, Camille. Don't!

Really, Walsh, why do you waste pixels on this tired old schtick.

**lest we forget that G.W. only backed into the nomination because more viable candidates, such as his brother, didn't want to blow a chance at the White House just to get crushed by the Clinton machine **

Wow. There's some serious re-writing of history there. (Just for starters, in the late nineties Jeb was fresh off a loss in the Florida governor's race that he lost largely because voters there thought he came across as a nasty, arrogant, spoiled little prick...if only they had remembered that two years later). I can only surmise that Salon's editors, knowing Paglia's latest drivel would be pasted by the people who actually pay to keep this outfit running, told the ego-bloated nitwit she could pick (or write?) one of the editor's choice letters that backed up he half-witted ranting.

Again, Joan Walsh: Why? How do you justify printing this crap?

WTF? If Pace isn't incompetent, why is he being fired?

'

McCain gets more pathetic every day.

4:58 PM, EST, July 3, or two minutes after Jack Welch's jet leaves Reagan Nat'l for Nantucket, with Monsignor Russert, Tweety and Brian Williams on board (that's like, a metaphor).

I didn't read the story because of the spoiler alert, but if I could make one observation:

People interested in a story like this are probably fans and readers of the series. Why print a story with spoilers before the book is even released. If I wanted this kind of above-it-all, poseur sort of attitude, I'd still be reading Slate.

I can only assume this is a consequence of virtual exposure to the odiously self-satisfied Paglia.

You should take this article down