Slime?

I thought Greg Sargent did an adequate response to Joe Klein's response to me. I am curious, however, about Klein's view that my post undermined my reputation for "substance over slime." I genuinely don't think I slimed Klein at all. We seem to disagree about the significance of David Broder writing an unusually mean column about Hillary Clinton. Klein viewed Broder's unusual meanness as evidence that Clinton's behavior was unusually egregious. I view it as evidence of a continuing pattern of Broder bearing an irrational level of ill-will toward the Clintons. I think Klein and I even agree about Klein's view of the Clintons (seriously, read the book if you're interested; Klein's domestic policy views are significantly to my right, but it's still an interesting book).

For an example of actual slime, I think you have to turn to Jonah Goldberg's repeated writings on me at the Corner -- I'd just like to be clear as to whether or not Jonah's trying to say I'm an anti-semite as he seems to be waffling on this point.

Comments

disagreeance counts as slime if you write for a print publication. (clearly, no case against klein could be substantive.)

Posted by marc h. | January 29, 2007 4:45 PM

Maybe Klein thinks this is the slime:

It's a good thing Time pays Joe Klein the big bucks since amateur bloggers couldn't deliver insights like this

Comparing a journalist of Klein's stature to amateur bloggers?! What next?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 29, 2007 4:53 PM

You're too nice. Come over to the Dark Side. It's more fun.

Posted by Miracle Max | January 29, 2007 4:56 PM

You should bring up the piece by Broder about a year ago in which he contributed to the speculation on the frequency of the Clintons' sexual intercourse. Is that the kind of punditry that Klein is so enamored of?

Posted by gregor | January 29, 2007 5:00 PM

jonah has some chutzpah, after all, according to halakha he is not a jew at all!

Posted by chet snicker | January 29, 2007 5:02 PM

You should bring up the piece by Broder about a year ago in which he contributed to the speculation on the frequency of the Clintons' sexual intercourse. Is that the kind of punditry that Klein is so enamored of?

Yes. The man wrote Primary Colors, after all.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 29, 2007 5:04 PM

Apparently, according to Jonah, you shouldn't complain about being compared to a vile historical character if you're not an expert on that character.

Posted by Jim W | January 29, 2007 5:09 PM

"I genuinely don't think I slimed Klein at all."

Yeah, well, why not? It's what he deserves.

Posted by Farinata X | January 29, 2007 5:12 PM

Apparently, according to Jonah, you shouldn't complain about being compared to a vile historical character if you're not an expert on that character.

So Jonah wouldn't mind if I compared his love for being fucked by horses with that of Catherine the Great?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 29, 2007 5:15 PM

Substance aside, kudos to Klein for coming out to play.

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 5:20 PM

i'm perfectly happy to slime klein, but only because he has slimed me and millions of others through a variety of comments (mostly having to do with how ill-informed opposition to our splendid little adventure in iraq is)....

Posted by howard | January 29, 2007 5:26 PM

I would guess that Joe Klein and David Broder don't actually think the Clintons' sex life and Hillary's stagecraft are weighty issues deserving of more public discourse and voter attention than whether the current President is pursuing a disastrous foreign policy... so I have absolutely no idea how they self-justify their choice of such insipid and petty material for their columns.

Oh, and if you happen to be reading this, Joe, that wasn't slime. But given that you sold out your integrity to write a trashy bestselling novel about the Clintons and then repeatedly lied about it, you're sufficiently well-acquainted with slime that you don't need anyone to describe it to you.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 29, 2007 5:42 PM

I don't know if you can say that Goldberg is sliming Yglesias. I think he (and a fair bit of the committed right) has a vastly different (and crazy) reading of history than the standard reading. And so various figures, like Lindbergh, signify something very different to him than they do to everyone else. It's as someone said that, however egregious his mistakes, Stalin was only trying to do what was best for his people (I have no idea whether that's supportable, but I suspect not), and in that way Bush is much like Stalin. In that case, the person might mean that comparison to be supportive and perhaps even complimentary to Bush. But no one sane would see it that way.

It's just a freaky phenomenon, and I don't really have any idea how to respond to it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 5:59 PM

Re sliming: As Goldberg points out, Matthew's objection is especially ironic given his posts about Peretz the past month or so.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 6:07 PM

"Substance aside, kudos to Klein for coming out to play."

I am actually all intimidated, now that I know Klein reads MY and even comments, for goodness sake. And quotes comments! I must be careful about my language and rhetoric.

Now that Klein is a blogger, I respect him more, and find much of his writing insightful. Really. I had apparently misjudged him based on quotes out of context.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 29, 2007 6:09 PM

Well now I'm curious as to why Broder doesn't talk to the type of people who participate in marches and why that's viewed as a good thing by Klein. Is this a Brooksian attempt to define what is normal and acceptable political participation? If you know and care enough about something to take to the streets, that should disqualify you from having an opinion that Broder might want to look into?

God almighty these people are tiresome.

Posted by mrgumby2u | January 29, 2007 6:26 PM

To paraphrase Harry Truman, consider that maybe you just told the truth and he thought it was slime.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | January 29, 2007 6:53 PM

Re sliming: As Goldberg points out, Matthew's objection is especially ironic given his posts about Peretz the past month or so.

Wha? Yes how dare Matt quote from Peretz and point out that the quoted bits have been vile and xenophobic. SLIME, you say! Far be it for Al to ever offer someone's own quotes as evidence against them.

Seriously dude, try harder.

And I don't think "irony" means what you think it means.

Posted by Pooh | January 29, 2007 6:58 PM

And while we're tangentially on the subject...hrm.

Posted by Pooh | January 29, 2007 7:08 PM

If criticizing AIPAC for its pernicious influence on US foreign policy is anti-semitic, then speaking ill of the KKK shows anti-white bias.

Posted by econBras | January 29, 2007 7:12 PM

You took a slightly sarcastic tone with Klein, which he confuses with slime and incivility.

Klein really thinks Hilary's speech means she's not curious? Or does she simply have an understandable aversion to giving microphone time to Bush appointees, since they have proven themselves, time and time and time again, to be KNOWN LIARS? Or is it uncivil for a reporter to report that Bush and his appointees rarely speak except to lie?

OHHHHH, now I'm being mean. Tell it to tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, three thousand dead Americans, thousands of wounded Americans, and their families.

If Klein is going to complain about the incivility of Democrats, without historical context, as far as I'm concerned then he and Broder can go Cheney themselves.

Posted by john | January 29, 2007 7:48 PM

Wha? Yes how dare Matt quote from Peretz and point out that the quoted bits have been vile and xenophobic. SLIME, you say!

Wha? Yes how dare Goldberg quote from Matthew and point out that the quoted bits have been vile and xenophobic. SLIME, you say!

Yes, yes. I know. Peretz really is a racist. And Matthew really isn't an anti-semite. So, blah, blah, blah.

I don't, BTW, really get why Klein says Matthew slimed him. (or is it Broder? Dunno.) Klein is right and Matthew is wrong regarding Broder, but Matthew's (wrong) criticism isn't really "slime", as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 7:50 PM

Matt,

You went for the head fake. The whole slime thing was just a distraction because you hit him hard. Ignore it. Klein may be the inside now, but his incompetence is make him less and less relevant. Time itself, like SNL are institutions that need radical changes to have meaning in this era.

Posted by patience | January 29, 2007 8:04 PM

In that case, Al, your post makes even less sense.

Also note the difference between the charges vs. Peretz and the charges vs. Yglesias. Evidence. On the one hand, we have what MP actually said, on the other, we have Jon Chait's tendentious recapitulation of what Yglesias said. Apples and elephants.

Posted by Pooh | January 29, 2007 8:04 PM

"Now that Klein is a blogger, I respect him more, and find much of his writing insightful. Really. I had apparently misjudged him based on quotes out of context."

Klein has always had a fair amount of insightful writing. He's also had a fair amount of meaningless blather.

But, again, substance of this particular dispute aside, I give him props for coming out to play. He's trying to engage with smart folks who are his social inferiors, and that deserves a certain amount of respect.

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 8:06 PM

Klein's a knackered nag who should be put out to pasture or made into glue. He knows it and worries about it. So he tries to retool. I see pop cultural references to whatever he thinks is "hip" ahead.

I did like "Primary Colors," though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 8:14 PM

Can you imagine the sliming you'd incur if you happened to bring up the fact that 40% of Princeton's student body is, ahem, Jewish. This according to Finkelstein in his recent lecture at Stanford (normanfinkelstein.com). Now, if true (and Finkelstein is if anything meticulous), what are the implications of that? Is it anti-Semitic to bring it up? anti-Semitic to discuss it at all? Or, on the other hand, is it the kind of thing that by remaining hidden and verboten to reveal- can actually fuel anti-Semitism if it were publicized to a populace increasingly nickled and dimed? Unlike the difficulty in gauging The Israel Lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy- a staggering figure like 40% is right there in black and white. Talk about dangerously problemmatic...

Posted by Trevor | January 29, 2007 8:17 PM

Call me naive, but when someone writes,

nor, I would like to think, would any fair-minded reader interpret me as calling Yglesias an anti-Semite of any kind

as Goldberg does, I don't think he's calling you anti-Semitic.

Goldberg just says that claiming to be sure we'll go to war with Iran just because the "NY Money people" want us to, which Clark said and Matt supported, "at minimum, demonstrate[s] amateurishness, insensitivity and ignorance."

Seems fair enough to me. It's to their credit that Matt and Clark have since backed off this conspiracy-theory nonsense.

Posted by Ragout | January 29, 2007 8:31 PM

It's to their credit that Matt and Clark have since backed off this conspiracy-theory nonsense.

OK, so now we know you're a troll. Fuck off.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 8:46 PM

Can you imagine the sliming you'd incur if you happened to bring up the fact that 40% of Princeton's student body is, ahem, Jewish. This according to Finkelstein in his recent lecture at Stanford (normanfinkelstein.com).

I'm watching the Stanford video trying to figure out what you are talking about but I suspect you are hallucinating. Forty percent Jewish wouldn't be crazy out of line given it's regional demographics, it would be strange given Princeton's classic reputation as a last bastion of WASPy privelege. Either way, being shocked just makes you an idiot.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 29, 2007 8:58 PM

He's trying to engage with smart folks who are his social inferiors, and that deserves a certain amount of respect.

I don't respect people who think they have social inferiors. I know less of Klein's attitude on such matters than Broder's, but the latter clearly lost my respect in the last century.

Posted by Quarterican | January 29, 2007 9:14 PM

"I don't respect people who think they have social inferiors."

I didn't say Klein thought Matthew was his social inferior. I said Matthew actually was his social inferior, and objectively, he is. Social pecking order is not a measure of a person's intrinsic worth, but it is something that does exist.

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 9:19 PM

Petey's not read his Bobo. There are an infinity of hierarchies, and a related set of social pecking orders. I think what Petey is admitting is that in the world (that is, among the people) that Petey cares about, MY would be beneath Klein. I don't have much trouble believing that; after all, he's in the best position to judge.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 9:23 PM

Petey - The old version of social class is no longer relevant.
The new determinate of worth is 'who would you rather have a beer with' and the answer is obviously Matt. Petey you need to stop living in the last century.

Posted by poke fun | January 29, 2007 9:27 PM

That would explain why he started sucking up when the TNR crew was around to hear it.

Maybe he thinks he'll get a job.

I think the first time I said anything here it was because Eli Lake from the Sun was here and it seemed like an incredible opportunity to call him an asshole.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 29, 2007 9:27 PM

Now, I'm already dangerously out on a limb with this Princeton thing, but I still don't get how Matt or anyone else could possibly be charged with being "anti-Semitic" unless they were an out & out Jewish Clarence Thomas. Chuck Schumer gets plaudits and he's not exactly William Cohen. Or even the ever popular "always ready in reserve- self-hating Jew"- How I wonder can one's Self, the personal traits and individual psychology of person X or Y be undifferentiated from their tribal identity (Jew). "What's Susie like?"..."Oh, you know- she's a Jew."..."What about Sam? What kind of guy is he?"..."Uh, just like Susie- another Jew."...So, if you're really a "self-hating Jew"- it would seem to me- you have no true inner essence, no soul, no distinct personality, nothing- you're just a blob. So, labeling someone a "self-hating Jew" or maligning someone Jewish as "anti-Semitic" is a case of the black as night pot calling the kettle pitch-black. On top of that- it's neurotic as hell. What would possess someone to call someone that unless they had the shakiest grip on who they were- a sense of self that could implode into nothingness at the drop of a pointed question. Jonah G. is a deeply fucked-up little schmendrick.

Posted by Trevor | January 29, 2007 9:34 PM

"I think what Petey is admitting is that in the world ... that Petey cares about, MY would be beneath Klein."

Actually, in the world Petey cares about, MY ranks above Klein. But that's only because Petey's world is idiosyncratic. In Petey's world, Chucky Atkins ranks above whoever the greatest football quarterback is.

But Petey also recognizes the existence of a social order that is more popularly held, which in light of the meaning of "social order", is the one that matters.

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 9:34 PM

No, you are boring the nipples off people, Trevor.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 29, 2007 9:40 PM

" I'm watching the Stanford video trying to figure out what you are talking about but I suspect you are hallucinating. Forty percent Jewish wouldn't be crazy out of line given it's regional demographics, it would be strange given Princeton's classic reputation as a last bastion of WASPy privelege. Either way, being shocked just makes you an idio"t (Ed Marshall)

Ed, shit-for-brains- again- I wasn't talking about your looks. Don't you look like an idiot? I'll bet you do. it's on his Stanford appearance video- it's a long talk, handsome... If you can break away from your circle-jerk- you'll catch it.

Posted by Trevor | January 29, 2007 9:59 PM

Yeah, I watched it, I've read most everything Finkelstein ever wrote to get to the part about Princeton. It was a joke, genius. It's a Princeton joke. What makes it funny is that Princeton was famous for being one of the last Ivy League holdouts for Jew quotas. You don't have to take my word for it, write Finklestein, he's good at answering his mail.

Either way, what makes you a rube and a dipshit is that you think it would be shocking if it was true.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 29, 2007 10:08 PM

Petey -

I think you missed my point: I don't give people credit for behaving with what I consider to be a reasonable level of human mutual respect or regard. If Klein didn't want to engage with Matt that's fine and it's his business, but his doing so isn't brave, or special, or noble, or even particularly generous. There's nothing about it that makes me toss some props Klein's way, because the only reason it *could* be considered a noteworthy action is if you buy into the idea that Klein's superior social status is real, or confers upon him certain qualities, one of which is that he's to be lauded for engaging an inferior. I believe that people perceive social castes in this way, but I happen to not believe in them myself, and I have some disdain for those who do (and I'm not saying that I think you believe them to be real, Petey, so I'm not - here and now, anyway - expressing disdain). That for the time being at least Klein indicates that perhaps Klein doesn't think this way either, but he doesn't get special credit for that. I don't give out special credit or respect for "Not Being a Douchebag."

(NB: this gets sort of sticky; I don't think if Klein *didn't* engage with Matt then that would be douchebaggy behavior; I just believe that there's a spectrum of acceptable mutual human recognition and respect, and I don't think Klein has come close to being so exceptional as to pass out of this behavioral range and into a place where I'm compelled to say, "Oh, I really respect him for XYZ.")

And yeah, all this is informed by the fact that I actually have no respect for Klein as a professional, so I'm a bit biased, but he's really not done anything special here by "engaging" with Matt, to the extent that Klein's comment can be called engagement.

Posted by Quarterican | January 29, 2007 10:34 PM

Gah. The shorter version of my comment, without the botched syntax at the end of the first paragraph, would read: "What I really wanted to say is that just as I don't respect those who believe they have social inferiors, I don't toss extra respect to those to *don't* believe it."

Posted by Quarterican | January 29, 2007 10:39 PM

SomeCallMeTim,

You've certainly demonstrated what this whole thing's about. People don't like it when faced with accurate criticisms, so they respond "Fuck off" or "he called me an anti-Semite!" Anything but defend their position or admit that they were wrong.

Posted by Ragout | January 29, 2007 10:49 PM

According to Hillel, Princeton's Jewish enrollment is 14%. If Finkelstein really said 40%, that would be a typical example of his "meticulous research."

By the way, it's pretty amusing that Trevor can write

Can you imagine the sliming you'd incur if you happened to bring up the fact that 40% of Princeton's student body is, ahem, Jewish.

Followed by the claim that Norman Finkelstein happened to bring up this "fact." So, can we conclude that Finkelstein's been slimed and Trevor has evidence of said sliming?

Of course not, the truth is that loons like Finkelstein are generally ignored. Check out the lack of reviews for Finkelstein's latest book. Nobody bothers sliming him.

Posted by Ragout | January 29, 2007 11:02 PM

Anything but defend their position or admit that they were wrong.

Defend "conspiracy" as an allegation made by either, or fuck off.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 11:15 PM

I was really being sarcastic, and hoping to get quoted on Klein's blog, so I could go nyah nyah.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 29, 2007 11:21 PM

Matt writes above, "I think Klein and I even agree about Klein's view of the Clintons . . ."

Did he mean to say that he thinks he and Klein agree about BRODER's view of the Clintons?

Posted by ferd | January 29, 2007 11:33 PM

I already summarized the conspiracy theory Clark spouted and Matt endorsed (before backing off): claiming to be sure we'll go to war with Iran just because the "NY Money people" want us to. In fact, the US government does not always do what the "New York Money people" want.

This is a conspiracy theory not only because it alleges a conspiracy (conspiracy just means "working together"), but because it claims, without evidence, a privileged knowledge of how the world works. The rest of us thought that a Texas Baptist named President Bush decided US foreign policy, but the conspiracy theorist says that it's actually "New York money people".

Conspiracy theorists have been making these kind of claims for hundreds of years, from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to today's crazies, who write things like:

Not only were the Israeli partisans the very sources of the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie, they control Congress and White House with huge amounts of money -- and the promise of political ruin for anyone daring to stand against their power. They have the most feared lobby on Capitol Hill to make sure no Congressman dares to stand up to them.

Posted by Ragout | January 30, 2007 12:03 AM

Yeah, back to you "Ed" (gotta be one of the all-time loser names. Ed Harris - that's it)- that's the only cool Ed) And, the Princeton thing's accurate (I know Finkelstein, it's a fuckin' ridiculous thing to name-drop a lonely guy academic- but hes a bud -this bunch of actor pals out here (L.A.) we kinda showed him off at a party last May when he popped in at UCLA. .

Posted by Trevor | January 30, 2007 12:51 AM

wait a minute- Ed Norton, and Mr. Ed, yeah, but otherwise it's a john's name- some schmuck that gets caught with his pants down when the cops bust in on him & his quasi-skank "escort" honey..."Uh, Mr. Marshall, Ed, would you please put your pants on?" Yes, officer." Yeah, my neighbor's an escort, looks lika a hot coed ($300 a pop) I'll ask her- "Is 'Ed a john's name?...Yeah, she just confirmed it.

Posted by Trevor | January 30, 2007 1:30 AM

wait a minute- Ed Norton, and Mr. Ed, yeah, but otherwise it's a john's name- some schmuck that gets caught with his pants down when the cops bust in on him & his quasi-skank "escort" honey..."Uh, Mr. Marshall, Ed, would you please put your pants on?" Yes, officer." Yeah, my neighbor's an escort, looks lika a hot coed ($300 a pop) I'll ask her- "Is 'Ed a john's name?...Yeah, she just confirmed it.

Posted by Trevor | January 30, 2007 1:30 AM

I wonder if there's any way to get Trevor and Ragout to move in together somewhere and leave everyone else alone.

Posted by grh | January 30, 2007 1:47 AM

GRH,

No. As long as Matt keeps up the unjustified attacks on the "Jewish Lobby," he's going to attract a few critics, and a lot of sympathizers who think there are too many Jews in the Ivy league.

Posted by Ragout | January 30, 2007 6:56 AM

Joe Klein has a terrible gig there. Everyone goes there hoping for pearls of Ana content, and end up having to read Joe instead, so of course they come away angry and embittered, and write posts like Matt's. I just hope Karen and Joe don't try to outsnark Ana. Remember when the poor sincere wonks at TAPPED tried to keep up with Charlie Pierce? Ugly.

Posted by Boring | January 30, 2007 9:42 AM