Broder Lies - Film At Eleven
Less than a week after saying in a Post online chat that he plans to refrain from commenting on the Clinton marriage, David Broder uses his column today to comment on the Clinton marriage, stating that voters need to decide if they are comfortable with a power sharing arrangement in the White House.
Broder and much of the Beltway Cocktail Weenie crowd have had their knives out for the Clintons ever since 1993 when the rabble came to town and had the audacity to move into the White House after winning a split election, something that has never troubled Broder about the Bush ascension in 2001. And the Clintons have given hacks like Broder and evenhanded pundits and journalists plenty to criticize since that time.
But this constant harping on a Hillary presidency and Bill's alleged power sharing, a right-wing bogeyman if there ever was one, especially after saying less than a week ago that he wouldn't write about the Clinton or Giuliani marriage(s) reflects the writings of an man so full of himself as the alleged objective dean of Beltway journalism that he thinks no one will hold him accountable for his own statements or see through his Beltway elitism and loathing of all things Clinton.
Since he has made his own statements from last week inoperative, and has resumed his obsession with the Clinton marriage, I look forward to several columns about Rudy's marriages and his current wife's influence upon him, the influence of Fred Thompson's wife upon him, and the influence of Michele Obama upon her husband.
Broder was clever enough today to not write a column solely about the Clinton marriage, because it would be obvious that the man was going back on what he said last week. Instead, needing his fix of anti-Clinton speed, Broder wound his way into the Clinton marriage again by walking through immigration and Hillary's failed effort to get health care reform implemented first. He managed to blame the Democratic congress for not getting immigration reform done this year, while never mentioning that Broder's buddy George W. Bush lost his own political party on the matter and that it was the Democrats who were ready to get it done.
And then to complete the flawed attack, he transitioned from that tunnel-visioned selective history on immigration into another red herring about Hillary's seemingly singular failings in 1993-1994 on health care, and what this may mean in another Clinton presidency. This is a huge stretch by Broder, because no one has suggested, even Hillary herself, that she would give Bill policy assignments and portfolios as a second power center in the White House. But there was Broder creating that argument out of whole cloth today as a cautionary tale about the perils of another Billary show.
Broder states that he wrote a lot about the 1993-1994 health care battle to buttress his argument that he is a trusted critic of Hillary on the matter, yet again he and her many critics on the matter selectively forget that:
1. Broder's buddies, the GOP, opposed serious negotiations on significant health care reform from the outset;
2. The congressional Democratic leadership never fully engaged on the matter;
3. Democrats in Congress were splintered on the best approach;
4. The National Federation of Independent Businesses opposed it from the outset; and
5. The US Chamber of Commerce reversed its stated willingness to support reform when pressured by the small business lobby, and
6. The administration wanted a revenue-neutral approach, limiting their options and ability to sell it.
There is much to criticize about how the administration tried and failed to get the 1993-1994 deal done. But to hang it all on Hillary only serves to feed the "cold bitch" narrative that Broder and the GOP traffic in everyday. Feeding this narrative also gives a free pass to media hacks like Broder, who hold their Beltway friends, the GOP, and Corporate America to a different standard.