I'm mad again: smug self satisfied Washington pundits!

[ginnyinWI]

On Washington Week, no less. Peabody award winning program. One of them, I think it was Dan Baltz brought up Kerry being in Afghanistan at the right time: "an agreement brought about by John Kerry, no less!" Chuckles all around the table--including Gwen Ifil! He said that Kerry wanted to be Secretary of State, and he had a chance to be it for a week. While they didn't say anything untrue, and did give him credit for getting Karsai to go along after working with him for five days--what I want to know is, what is the joke here? Why to we always have to hear these snide remarks from these so-called reputable journalists?

:mad:

[Luftmensch067]

1. It's so weird, such a disconnect with reality!

I rolled my eyes almost out of my head when I saw what purported to be a straight news article the other day that said something like "Kerry jetted off to Afghanistan." WTF??? Makes it sound like cocktails on the Concorde. My greatest comfort is that JK is living a more useful and happy life than most of these losers could ever dream of living.

[karynnj]

2. I'm with you there

The fact is the kool kids have their favorites - and John Kerry is not one of them. (That, in itself, shows how amazing JK's win of the nomination and his making an impossible year a close race was.) I suspect that many of these fp pundits have either Clinton or Holbrooke as their valued sources.

The only think that I tell myself is that it doesn't change reality. This would not have happened if another leader happened to be there - our ambassador had tried and failed and if either Holbrooke or Clinton had a realistic chance, it was their job to get on the first plane and get over there. The Afghanistan meetings could have been joined remotely. Resolving this was necessary for any of the plans they discussed.

It is very possible that that runoff would not be happening if not for Kerry - and Afghanistan would be a bigger mess than it is. I saw a short interview with Karzi on CNN today. He was asked if the US pressured him and about agreeing to the runoff. (I looked at the web site and cannot find a link) His reasons sounded like many things Kerry said. He reluctantly kind of agreed that he had been "calls" to do so - he then mentioned that Senator Kerry acted very well - I'm not sure of wording, but my take away was that he was saying Kerry was respectful. The point is he differentiated Kerry from all the others. I suspect it might be that only Kerry tried to see it from his point of view and gave him the reasons to do it that allowed him to keep his self respect and claim the figh ground.

It also does not change what the administration really knows. President Obama knows exactly what happened as do Kerry's peers in the Senate. This can't hurt. At this point, Kerry's accomplishments and power are not dependent on the media - but on the Senate and the WH.

[ginnyinWI]

3. yes, Kerry can not be diminished by any amount of snark.

The people who are diminished are the ones doling it out--in my eyes at least. Makes them look like school children. I do think there is envy at the root of it.

I should have posted a link to Washington Week earlier; here it is if anyone wants to see the show: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=wwir0epc31

[karynnj]

6. This doesn't even take reading between the lines to see Holbrooke

was big loser here. He has the reputation for being a very top diplomat, who brokered the Dayton accord on Bosnia. If he really believes his relationship with Karzai was fine, it is hard to believe that he didn't see that Karzai not agreeing to the runoff would create a crisis big enough to justify him preparing Clinton via phone. ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-holbrooke24-2009oct24,0,1232737.story?track=rss )

In another article it was clear he was touchy about the credit Kerry was getting and that people were asking where was he. I understand his concern for his reputation, but a gracious compliment to Kerry from him would have been better than a joking comment on being ok about being eclipsed by him. ( http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/10/23/holbrooke-jokes-about-kerrys-karzai-eclipse/ ) But, you kind of know when you have to defend that your work, it is not a good sign. It may be that this is not an area of the world where he is the best diplomat.

[MBS]

4. I love everyone's comments here

Thanks, Ginny, luftmensch anad karynnj! All just great
"what is the joke here?"
"cocktails on the Concorde"
"The only thing that I tell myself is that it doesn't change reality. . .It also does not change what the administration really knows."

And my favorite (another thanks to luftmensch!)
"My greatest comfort is that JK is living a more useful and happy life than most of these losers could ever dream of living.":thumbsup:

[beachmom]

5. Although PBS and NPR are wonderful in reporting news here and around the world

they are not very good with political punditry (see: Brooks & Shields). It tends to skew right, and is not particularly insightful or thoughtful.

I stopped watching WW after The Joke. You think they giggled this week, you should have seen how much they laughed about Kerry presidential prospects after he was attacked 5 days in a row nonstop for forgetting one word in a lame joke. Their behavior was awful and mean spirited.

Thanks for letting me know they haven't changed. I will continue to not watch that show.

[ginnyinWI]

7. I agree with you--no riveting puditry there!

I like Newshour's "newsmaker interviews" and some of their human interest stories. Jim Lehrer is a good interviewer. I DVR the show and skip through it. I don't watch WW normally but saw Kerry mentioned and decided to listen online.

Someone writing in The Atlantic was saying how much better Al Jazeera English is than PBS for international news coverage. I watched Friday and it was indeed pretty good. Not everyone can find it, though. It's on Link TV at 9 p.m. CT, a half hour show.

[beachmom]

8. I don't have Sat. TV, but you can watch AJ English on line.

I am checking out this disturbing report about Peter Galbraith. Former staffer in the SFRC. U.S. diplomat. U.N. official in Afghan., just fired. And now, well, look at the program:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insideiraq/2009/10/20091023161518442828.html#

Definitely true. Also saw a Nat'l Review piece. He's a Democrat.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/15/galbraith_admits_financial_stake_in_kurdish_oil

So I guess AJ is not a bad news network (my issue is organizations stick to the facts regardless their viewpoint).

[ginnyinWI]

9. I found the article online that I was referring to.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/al-jazeera

The writer thinks it's pretty factual, with its only bias being toward those with little power, and being a little more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.

The Peter Galbraith thing is disturbing. I wonder if he is being framed? He was an accuser and now he's being accused. How convenient. Of course I am no expert, knowing little about this.

[beachmom]

10. Actually, I (gasp) subscribe to the print version of The Atlantic

and read that article, and was intrigued. It seems most news orgs have a basic world view so that influences what stories and even angles they pursue. But I am fine with that if they get facts right and also don't LEAVE OUT facts, try to get things reasonably in context, etc. But clearly, AJ has a much different perspective than, say, CNN.

[ginnyinWI]

11. I'm getting the Kindle version right now.

I'm thinking of getting the print version again--had one several years ago. I think I have some unused frequent flier miles that will get me a freebie subscription. ;) I am looking for something with a little more meat to it than Newsweek. The New Yorker is another one I'm considering, but they usually have just one political-type article and I can get that online.

Rachael Maddow recommended an article from The New Yorker called "The Predator War" and I was able to print and read it. Wow--what is being done with predator drones in our name and with our money! Sickening, but I don't know what the alternative is either. Glad it's not up to me to decide.

[beachmom]

12. The New Yorker is a great magazine. And the cartoons are great, too.

The reason I don't subscribe to it is that it comes every week, and I couldn't keep up. I do miss it, though. And I don't like reading it on line because the articles are very long.

I subscribe to Time. It is MUCH better than Newsweek. JMHO.

I also kind of miss The Economist (they just put up walls on their website, so there is a lot less to read) because I like European political news plus their cultural type articles. Although flawed, admittedly, The Economist is probably the best weekly magazine if you just want to know what is going on all over the world. I wish a left leaning version of it (or even just centrist) would come out.

[ginnyinWI]

14. I find it is worth it to print out an article,

rather than read it online. Then I can read it slouched on my couch, lol.

[wisteria]

13. I am with you, it is like their is this inside joke among them all.

I wonder if perhaps they have been aligned with other pols who have always worked to discredit Senator Kerry. Anyway, I don't think it is appropriate for them to be behaving this way. I think the only way to end this nonsence is to put it to them directly. Ask them what is so funny, because you saw nothing funny about it. I will be sending them an e-mail.

[ginnyinWI]

15. good idea. I will, too. n/t