The Clinton Rose

People tell me David Broder used to be a journalistic powerhouse. Discussing his dreams of a Huckabee-Richardson matchup, the Dean says:

Odds are it will never happen, even though Americans have tended to prefer governors over senators when it comes to picking a president. That's why no sitting senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

But Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both of whom went straight from the statehouse to the White House, have taken much of the bloom off that particular rose.

The Bill Clinton who left office with a 66 percent approval rating took the bloom off the statehouse rose? How so? And seriously, why can't Broder just say that Broder didn't like Bill Clinton, why the need to project this dislike onto an electorate that thought he was great?

Comments

why can't Broder just say that Broder didn't like Bill Clinton, why the need to project this dislike onto an electorate that thought he was great?

This is why. He has occular issues.
http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/05/14/keyboard-kommando-komics-presents-11/

Posted by Northern Observer | May 24, 2007 9:35 AM

Well he said something bad about Bush, see? So he had to say something bad about Clinton, too. That's what journalism is.

Posted by Sam L. | May 24, 2007 9:38 AM

I took poli sci in the mid-70's and I can still hear our youngish professors spouting that, if we wanted to know what was going on in the government, we had to read David Broder. I didn't pay much attention to that, but clearly the man's fan club has huge roots. I would hope the profs are now touting Krugman.

Posted by paperpusher | May 24, 2007 9:41 AM

The 66 percent are the wrong sort of people. Their opinion doesn't count -- many of them use bad @#! language.

Posted by Tom B. | May 24, 2007 9:42 AM

And another thing...
David Broder is friends, that's right, friends with Karl Rove. It doesn't say much for his judgement that he is friends with such a morally corrupted figure as Karl Rove. The individual who has done more to corrupt and subvert American politics in the last 50 years than anyone else. He makes Nixon look tame. Friends.
Think about it...
And to imagine that the quality of America's democracy depends on a fourth estate staffed by the likes of this.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 24, 2007 9:44 AM

Odds are it will never happen, even though Americans have tended to prefer governors over senators when it comes to picking a president. That's why no sitting senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

There's, um, a bit of a problem with his logic here, as well. Not that there's any point in shooting fish in a barrel, but while it's right there in the blockquote...

Posted by Cyrus | May 24, 2007 9:46 AM

Come on, let's not white wash the Clinton years. For all that he was politically popular, there was an incredible amount of angst at the time about his personal conduct. While popular, Clinton was also simultaneously unpopular as well (now that's triangulation!)

Of course, given the sins of the subsequent administration, all of that seems ironic and incredibly misplaced...which is perhaps the ultimate irony of the Bush year - no one has done a better job of repairing Clinton's image than George W. Bush.

(Eew. I just defended Broder.)

Posted by Nasara | May 24, 2007 9:46 AM

Odds are it will never happen, even though Americans have tended to prefer governors over senators when it comes to picking a president. That's why no sitting senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

OK even this is nonsense. Most Americans don't give a damn whether a politician was a governor or senator. Senators tend not to get elected to the White House because a campaign propagandist can always find a vote on military funding or taxes or reproductive rights or gay marriage and use it against them, even if it completely distorts their overall record.

There is no end to Broder's wankery, is there?

Posted by r€nato | May 24, 2007 9:49 AM

Broder is friends with Karl Rove -Northern Observer

is that friends, or friends with privledges?

Posted by Hubris Sonic | May 24, 2007 9:53 AM

Trivia question for Broder--how many sitting governors have been elected president since, say, FDR?

Posted by rea | May 24, 2007 9:55 AM

David Broder is friends, that's right, friends with Karl Rove.

kkkarl rove has many friends among the sally quinn party pal set. howard fineman's gloating on countdown a few weeks ago, as he smirked that rove will still be standing when chimpy finally rides off to the dust-covered plains of texas. he was quite delighted at the thought that kkkarl is so clever to get away with all his schemes. it's such a fun game to document for howie...

Posted by linda | May 24, 2007 9:56 AM

And seriously ... do you think most (any?) Americans are thinking, 'Yeah ... I ain't a gonna vote for no damn governor for Pres-e-dent ever ag'in - no way no how! All they do is stink-up the place, and it AIN'T their place. Nothin' but Senators from here on out.'

Posted by DanF | May 24, 2007 9:58 AM

Im sorry Nasara, but it seems that you are a bit confused here.Yes there was an incredible amount of angst about Clintons personal behavior, but it was coming from the likes of David Broder and Cokie Roberts..THe public never shared there concerns ....NEVER....It was our ever insightful D.C. press core that felt that Clinton trashed the place...DOnt know what your talkin about with regards to your whitewash comment

Posted by tommy | May 24, 2007 9:59 AM

Nasara, I remain exceedingly critical of Clinton foreign policy.

However, it's fair to attack Broder's statements. I don't think there's a huge anti-Bill Clinton sentiment among voters that would penalize a governor running for president.

Whatever anti-Bill Clinton sentiment is out there is not connected to him being a governor before being elected POTUS.

Posted by Carl Nyberg | May 24, 2007 10:00 AM

And seriously, why can't Broder just say that Broder didn't like Bill Clinton, why the need to project this dislike onto an electorate that thought he was great?

Don't believe those lyin' polls. Broder IS the voice of the people so it must be true.

Posted by John Moltz | May 24, 2007 10:01 AM

Our high minded Broder thought Huckabee's line about Edward's haircut was just so clever. "He called him a pussy, but in s different way! Wow, its just so witty!"

And he really thinks Richardson has a better chance at the Democratic nomination when he's behind three very strong candidates than Huckabee does when Huckabee's behind three very weak candidates? Its time for mandatory retirement.

Posted by Rob | May 24, 2007 10:14 AM

Broder has finally divined the conventional wisdom of the 1980's, and he's sticking to it.

Posted by JoeW | May 24, 2007 10:19 AM

"However, it's fair to attack Broder's statements. I don't think there's a huge anti-Bill Clinton sentiment among voters that would penalize a governor running for president."

Carl, I think Broder's point is that after the failing Bush administration and the scandals (however flippant and personality driven) of the Clinton administration, some of the gleam of the governors running for the White House has worn off.

It's a perfectly defensible point. Peoples' perceptions of the "Washington outsider" may have changed, and now they may want someone who understands DC a little more, has firmer policy ideas and a more partisan record. I see the potential for a paradigm shift - and Broder does too. Of course, that upsets him. Me, less so.

Posted by Nasara | May 24, 2007 10:30 AM

iIt doesn't say much for his judgement that he is friends with such a morally corrupted figure as Karl Rove.

But Karl has a wonderful house with a view, and serves quail at dinner. How could such a tasteful, refined person be anything but good? Clinton, by contrast, was Bubba. I exaggerate, but this seems to be character judgement by way of Miss Manners.You can be pond scum, but the most important criterion for judgement is knowing what fork to use in public.

Posted by ronin | May 24, 2007 10:53 AM

I also think it seems obvious that Huckabee's odds are better than Richardson's - but another Broderism that jumped out at me was this: "And as we learned with both Clinton and Bush, mastery of a state legislature does not transfer to mastery of Congress."

If Bush hasn't exhibited total mastery of Congress, I don't know who has. Does Broder think there have only been two vetoes because Bush is deferring to Congress?

Posted by politicalfootball | May 24, 2007 10:59 AM

Gee, I don't remember that I ever worried about Clinton's "personal behavior" while he was in office. But then I'm sort of a philistine type guy.
But if the country was worried about Clinton's "personal behavior" think how many marriages that must have saved, as people worried about and faced the consequences of "personal behavior.
And I am sure the figures will bear me out.
Figures, start bearing!

Posted by Mooser | May 24, 2007 11:02 AM

"Clinton, by contrast, was Bubba. I exaggerate, but this seems to be character judgement by way of Miss Manners." Nah, that's a judgement based on class, pure and simple. Miss Manners is better than that.

Posted by mwg | May 24, 2007 11:05 AM

Don't you know that the invocation of Bill Clinton's name equalizes all critiques and balances the Great Scales of Objectivity that David Broder is charged with maintaining? See http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html#113108209613786936

Posted by Meph | May 24, 2007 11:06 AM

WJ Clinton was unpopular only among wingnuts, Washington society, and those who would only be satisfied by some gauzy ideal of perfection. GW Bush is popular only among wingnuts, Washington society, and those who seek the destruction of the USA (the first group is largely a subset of the third). The country is fortunate that all of those groups are small. The tragedy is that the wingnuts and Washington society are influential.

Posted by rk | May 24, 2007 11:06 AM

While it's no secret that both republicans & the press hated Clinton (viewing him as illegitimate), I never quite understood why.

Clinton was the very epitome of The American Dream(tm) -- grew up dirt poor, worked his way through university & eventually went on to become President of the US. I don't see how there could be a more literal example of the "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" dogma that republicans like to spout.

It seems that while republican's words pay lip service to The American Dream(tm), their actions appear focused on keeping the poor poor while consolidating money & power for the already wealthy.

Posted by raff | May 24, 2007 11:16 AM

Let's not ignore how amazingly absurd & stupid the reasoning here is. First, Clinton was a popular president (even though I personally don't care much for him). Second, is there really anyone who thought governors were innately better than Senators? Are people truly that stupid? I thought it was obvious that governors' biggest advantage was that they did not have to go on the record on National issues the way Senators have to. Third, does anyone think it would be bad to elect a governor because of Bush? WTF? Isn't the obvious lesson that people might choose not to elect someone who is clearly arrogant, willfully ignorant, and lazy? I mean, it has always been obvious Bush has those characteristics. Most governors aren't.

Seriously, the man is a joke.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 24, 2007 11:36 AM

Nasara has fallen prey to the same fallacy as Broder ... that the personal views of elite media figures equate to the views of the public generally. Outside Big Media, the only people who gave a flying fig about Clinton's private conduct were hardcore Republicans, and most of them were pretending to be appalled for the sake of partisanship. Most Americans just thought Clinton was a good president, which is why, when they were asked, they said he was a good president.

Of course, compared to his successor, he was Washington Lincoln FDR and Churchill rolled into one.

Posted by Gator90 | May 24, 2007 11:37 AM

"Well he said something bad about Bush, see? So he had to say something bad about Clinton, too. That's what journalism is.

Posted by Sam L. | May 24, 2007 9:38 AM "

Except when you can say something bad about progressives, leftists, liberals or even Democrats. Then you do not have to find "balance". That's what reponsible journalism is.

Posted by della Rovere | May 24, 2007 11:39 AM

I think governors are better than senators, but only because I think the U.S. senator is among the lowest forms of life. Governors are slightly higher on the evolutionary scale, if only because at least they have real jobs -- someone might notice if they just didn't show up.

However, even I wouldn't let that general fact affect my judgment of a specific senator or governor, were they running against each other.

Posted by too many steves | May 24, 2007 11:41 AM

Sorry, I need to harp on this a little more.

One of the absurd tendencies in horse-race reporting is to discuss executive experience versus legislative experience. I fully acknowledge these are different, but when reporters and pundits focus on it, they basically make a decision to learn nothing more about the candidates than their jobs. Why not discuss a given person's specific accomplishments and failures? Why focus on who was governor and who was Senator? It often seems like they're making a willful decision to do as little research as necessary.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 24, 2007 11:42 AM

Regarding Huckabee's chances - I would think that George W. has taken much of the bloom off of the evangelical rose.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 24, 2007 11:55 AM

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=676

From Us & Them: How the Press Covered the 1972 Election by James M. Perry (Clarkson N. Potter, New York, 1973):

It was just as bad as we anticipated--McGovern took the District of Columbia and Massachusetts--and David Broder, our most famous political writer, tried to analyze what had happened.

"What Goldwater and McGovern had in common--and what defeated both, so resoundingly--was that in the course of their campaigns, the voters came to the same conclusion that political and journalistic Washington had previously reached: that they were lightweights in the heavyweight division of presidential politics. They were men of good heart and good spirit, open and honorable, whose failing was their tendency to see public questions in one-dimensional, almost simplistic terms."

McGovern read the column and sat down to write Broder a letter in longhand.

"Bullshit," he said.

Posted by darrelplant | May 24, 2007 12:03 PM

"Second, is there really anyone who thought governors were innately better than Senators? Are people truly that stupid?"

Yes, David Broder believes that. He goes out on his trips to the "labratories of democracy" to have Governors blow smoke up his ass as he dutifully transcribes their stories "about getting things done" always in a bipartisan way.

Posted by Rob | May 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Outside Big Media, the only people who gave a flying fig about Clinton's private conduct were hardcore Republicans

Well, there was Andrea Dworkin, but maybe she was hopelessly corrupted by big media. Right. I guess she was a crypto-Republican.

Posted by Tyler Simons | May 24, 2007 12:28 PM

I'm voting for the Broderella-(Joe)Klein ticket in '08. Clearly, no one knows the score better than overpaid, inbred pundits, jaws clenched, heads firmly jammed up their own asses.

Let's cut out the middleman, and vote for the Wise Men O' Civility ticket! Who's with me?

Posted by Heywood J. | May 24, 2007 12:29 PM

Speaking of '72, Broder also played a role in bringing down Edmund Muskie after the NH primary.

Posted by JP | May 24, 2007 12:32 PM

Future historians will be having fun writing about the David Broders of Washington and their relationship with the Clintons.

Among Broder's circle of friends and colleagues Clinton was deeply unpopular throughout his presidency and remains unpopular today. And for Broder their opinion is all that matters.

Broder's Sunday column was one of the most embarrassing he has written. He praised Bush's "courage" for launching a ruinous war on an unarmed country. The gist of the column was "poor Bush, no noble, so unjustly maligned".

Posted by DonB | May 24, 2007 12:34 PM

Of course, that 66% could have included a whole bunch of people who were really disappointed and even angry about Clinton's personal behavior but grudgingly accepted that he was doing an ok job as President. That 33% may well have been really, really upset. I don't want to go out on too much of a limb, but I'd need to see a deeper analysis of Clinton's approval rating from more than one polling outfit before I'd accept Matt's claim that the "electorate that thought he was great."

I'm happy to concede that Bush II is less popular than Clinton, but I don't think that this is much to justify this piling on. Maybe I just haven't read the columns where David Broder reveals himself as a demon warrior.

Posted by Tyler Simons | May 24, 2007 12:35 PM

Nasara,

"the scandals (however flippant and personality driven) of the Clinton administration,"

Wait a minute.

If it is scandal Broder is concerned about why didn't he mention Reagan, also a former governor?

Reagan presidency was non stop scandalorama which is being whitewashed by the likes of Broder and the entire Washington press establishment.

How many members of the Clinton administration went to jail?

Over 190 Reagan officials were indicted many of them convicted or pled guilty for crimes directly linked to their jobs.

It is really painful to watch conventional wisdom of Broderland being accepted as fact even by Dems. We can't let the Broders of this world get away with rewriting history. They must be challenged every time they peddle lies.

Posted by DonB | May 24, 2007 1:14 PM

David Broder is friends, that's right, friends with Karl Rove.

Broder has eaten quail at his table.

So Rove must be a kewl guy.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | May 24, 2007 3:22 PM

To Nasara
I dont want to attack you personally.

When you mention scandals involving the Clintons you must remember that he was cleared of everyone except the blowjob.
In fact there would be no scandals to speak of today if the Broder's of DC and the Gingrichs and his ilk in Congress did not disdain Clinton even before he became president. (Not to mention Hillary)
Read "The Hunting of the President" and "Fools for Scandal" then get back to me.

Remember scandals (or claims of a scandal)come from those who control the message and repeat it enough times until you believe it MUST be true.

michael

Posted by Michael Heit | May 24, 2007 3:31 PM

Broder always reminds me of a Dana Carvey impersonation.

Posted by ralph c. | May 24, 2007 3:47 PM

Michael,

"Remember scandals (or claims of a scandal)come from those who control the message and repeat it enough times until you believe it MUST be true."

This needs to be repeated over and over again.

We have a new generation of voters who believe Reagan ran an ethical administration and Clinton adminstration was "scandal plagued". If you repeat a lie enough people end up believing it. And the media has been repeating the Saint Ronnie fairy tale story for two decades now along with "Clinton scandals" meme.

Next to Ed Meese the current AG Alberto Gonzalez looks like a boy scout. Scores of top level Reagan officials pled guilty to various crimes. Reagan Defense Secretary was indicted and escaped jail thanks to a pardon by Poppy.

We cannot allow David Broders of Washington get away repeating lies and rewriting history.

Posted by DonB | May 24, 2007 4:05 PM

To answer my own question, posed above, the only sitting governors elected president since 1932 were Clinton and the second Bush.

Not a lot of data from which to draw a sweeping generalization . . .

Posted by rea | May 25, 2007 11:46 AM