Houston Democrats

Huh? Here's what "Dean" Broder wrote (emphasis added):

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 even that is 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's upset he didn't find any dirt on their marriage while attending a public policy address. He writes, "The Clintons, according to the [New York] 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'.") What? The speech contained not a word about her husband's depressing lack of infidelity of late? Note to the Washington Post: Wonkette does this sort of thing better and for a whole lot less money.

Maybe David Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) didn't understood the topic he was sent to cover. There's nothing wrong with being too dense to understand global warming. Unless you've seen Al Gore's new movie, it's pretty complicated stuff.

But if that was the case, shouldn't he 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 fellatio 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 giggle 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." 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 Clinton? Please give the tip to me instead of the National Inquirer."

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

But if he's really looking for a hot tip on the Clintons and can't find one perhaps you can help. I know I've done my part. Just this afternoon I emailed Mr Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) and gave him the following inside scoop:

Mr Broder,

I'm writing to let you know something about Mrs Clinton that you apparently do not know. She's not just a candidate for president with an embarrassing problem in her family's past. She's also an informed and hard working politician who's addressing one of the biggest concerns of the day in public policy--global warming.

It would behoove you and your readers if you could follow up on the substance of this story. She apparently made some major policy proposals at the speech you attended. I do not know what those proposals are because your article did not mention them. As a voter who may have to face the option of voting for or against Mrs Clinton if she runs for president, I would like to know what she thinks we should do about global warming. It's a pretty big deal.

I think you, as a journalist covering the beat of presidential politics ought to look into this. It's a big story and, career-wise, a Washington journalist covering issues that voters care about would put you way ahead of the curve.

Instead, unfortunately, you chose to write about her marriage. I'm no journalist myself, but I think the Clintons' marriage falls into the category of "dog bites man." You might have picked up on that from the NY Times story yesterday that you cited in your latest column--the story that discovered that the Clintons are a very busy couple who still manage to make time to be around each other.

Your tawdry (and unsubstantiated) innuendo about Ms Belinda Stronach aside, there really isn't much of a news story from the way you covered her speech. I would suggest that you look into this global warming thing, as it is certain to be something voters care about.

As a citizen living far away from New York and Washington, I depend on journalists to provide me with information about what people in government can do and what they are planning to do about the big concerns of the day. That is precisely why your profession as a newspaperman is a protected and vital part of our republic.

I wish you would do your job, Mr Broder, and keep your tawdry innuendo out of the stuff I read. If you find dirt on Mr Clinton, of course I think you should publish it. The fact that you have nothing to report on but unspecified "buzz" suggests to me that you have nothing to report period. Meanwhile you're missing a lot of important news stories as you wait around for Bubba to slip up. And when journalists miss stories, then the public misses stories--and that would describe a real failure on the part of your profession.

I suppose you could tell me to read other journalists' work if I'm interested in actual news instead of the non-gossip you peddled in your latest column. But let me suggest that that would only be a clever, yet lazy, way of you avoiding your responsibilities as a leading journalist. Please cover the news, Mr Broder, and not the buzz over the lack of news.

Bucky Rea
Houston, TX

Now, he hasn't had the courtesy to write me back. Yet. But perhaps that's a time zone difference. I live in the flyover-country-that's-affected-by-government-policy time zone and Broder lives, apparently, in 1998.