WaPo's Dana Milbank Thinks Rove's Memoir is Fictional Too

Apparently, Dana Milbank thinks that Karl Rove's memoir is fictional. I already had that reaction, based on press accounts of the book.

David Broder Tosses Ice-Cold Water on WaPo's Emanuel Love Fest

Washington Post writers Ezra Klein, Dana Milbank, and Jason Horowitz have engaged in public displays of affection for Rahm Emanuel. Last weekend, however, Washington Post writer Colbert King rained on the parade with a scathing critique of Emanuel. Whereas the former portrayed Emanuel as a skillful taskmaster whom President Obama foolishly shunned to accept the counsel of starry-eyed advisers (like Jarrett and Axelrod), King argued that Emanuel was a classic Washington insider who wanted to blunt the possibility of meaningful change.

Today, David Broder joins King and expresses passionate dissent from the Emanuel love fest. Broder's article, "The Fable of Emanuel the Great," criticizes his colleagues who have portrayed Obama "as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right." Broder says that this is a "remarkable fiction" started by his "friend" Milbank.

Broder offers a very different perspective from "others" in the White House who apparently have not been seduced by Emanuel's "distractingly prominent quadriceps." According to that narrative:

The underlying problem . . . is a badly damaged economy that has sunk Obama's poll numbers and emboldened Republicans to blockade his legislative program.

Emanuel, who left a leadership post in the House to serve his fellow Chicagoan, Obama, has worked loyally for the president and is not suspected personally by his colleagues of inspiring these Post pieces.

But, as one White House staffer said to me, "Rahm likes to win," and when the losses began to pile up, he probably vented his frustrations to some of his old pals in Congress. It's clear that some of them are talking to the press.

Finally, Broder contends that the flurry of stories praising Emanuel have emerged because his "friends are so eager to exonerate him," but that in doing so, "they are threatening to undermine the president." Broder, however, argues that Obama should simply ignore Emanuel's media pals:

From too many years of covering politics, I have come to believe as Axiom One that the absolute worst advice politicians ever receive comes from journalists who fancy themselves great campaign strategists.

Broder's article is quite refreshing. I was beginning to suspect that the Washington Post server was taken over by an Emanuel-loving computer virus.

Poor Rahm Emanuel: Misunderstood, Ignored, and Handsome

The New Republic has joined the Washington Post's Rahm Emanuel lovefest. Noam Scheiber's article portrays Emanuel with greater complexity than Dana Milbank and Ezra Klein. Ultimately, however, Scheiber describes Emanuel favorably as a skillful, crude -- yet handsome -- dude:

At 50, Emanuel has the lean, taut look of a lifelong swimmer, with broad shoulders and distractingly prominent quadriceps. But at the heart of the Emanuel mystique is the family patois, which lurches between pronounced curtness and vivid, sometimes scatological, imagery. Emanuel will casually toss off quips like, “You’re in the bowels of nothin,’ man.” One former colleague recalls making two or three requests during a sensitive negotiation, only to have Emanuel respond: “Well, I guess if I can take care of Bill Clinton’s blow jobs, I can take care of that.”

And then there are the f-bombs, which Emanuel reels off like a verbal tic, sometimes embedding them in other words with Germanic aplomb. There is, for example, “Fucknutsville” (his pet name for Washington) and “knucklefuck” (an honorific bestowed on Republican opponents). In administration meetings, Emanuel will occasionally announce, “I think it’s fucking idiotic, but it’s your call.” (That would be Rahm-speak for: “You have more expertise than I do on this subject.”) He’s even been known to use the imprecation as a term of endearment, as when he signs off friendly phone calls: “Fuck you. See you later. I love you.” As Phil Kellam, one of Emanuel’s star recruits from the 2006 election cycle, recently joked to me, “If you could sum up Rahm Emanuel, it would be: big ideas, big mouth, big heart, little finger” (Emanuel lost half his middle finger in a teenage accident.) (emphasis added).

These public displays of Emanuel-affection are becoming too much.

Scheiber also portrays Emanuel as the smart yet ignored Chief of Staff. In doing so, Scheiber comes closer than any of the other Emanuel-lovers to blame Obama for his shortcomings:

[T]he enormity of the challenges Barack Obama faces, and the ambitiousness of his program, mean he has almost no margin for error. Indeed, Emanuel--the grizzled, battle-hardened Washington insider--was brought into the Obama White House for precisely this reason, because Obama was shrewd enough to recognize the chasm between campaigning and governing, and that what works in one domain can be debilitating in the other. Put simply, Emanuel is the chief of staff most presidents turn to when they realize their first chief of staff has failed them. To hire Rahm is to skip right to Leon Panetta without first enduring Mack McLarty.

But what we’re discovering is that Obama wasn’t prepared to give up on his campaign ideals so quickly. Deep down, he didn’t necessarily want a hard-nosed insider to execute his agenda; maybe he just wanted to want such a person. For all of his flaws, Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be the man who helped Barack Obama do things the easy way rather than learn lessons the hard way. But, sometimes, deciding to go the easy way can be the hardest thing of all (emphasis added).

Emanuel continues to cast his spell.

See also on Dissenting Justice:

Update: White House Responds to Washington Post's Adoration of Rahm Emanuel

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!.

Update: White House Responds to Washington Post's Adoration of Rahm Emanuel

Earlier today, Dissenting Justice examined a series of articles in which Washington Post writers Ezra Klein, Jason Horowitz, and Dana Milbank have lavished praise upon Rahm Emanuel and defended him from his liberal critics. Milbank notoriously argued that other senior White House staff were giving Obama shoddy advice and that Emanuel was the only skilled politician within the group. Horowitz repeated many of Milbank's arguments and portrayed Emanuel as the reasonable -- yet misunderstood and ignored -- member of Obama's staff.

Now, the White House has denied allegations of discord among Obama's senior advisers. According to The Hill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the Washington Post articles. Gibbs said "I don't subscribe to all of it or a lot of [the reports]" and that Emanuel has the full confidence of the President.

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

First, Ezra Klein defended Rahm Emanuel against growing concerns that he was failing President Obama. Next, Dana Milbank/Emanuel infamously argued that Emanuel is the only person with good political skills among Obama's senior White House staff. Now, Jason Horowitz has written the latest love letter from the Washington Post to Rahm Emanuel.

In the article, "Hotheaded Emanuel May Be White House Voice of Reason," Horowitz acknowledges that many commentators blame Emanuel for Obama's declining approval ratings. Horowitz, however, in a very glowing essay, sketches out a "contrarian narrative":

Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible. They believe Emanuel, the town's leading purveyor of four-letter words, a former Israeli army volunteer and a product of a famously argumentative family, was not aggressive enough in trying to persuade a singularly self-assured president and a coterie of true-believer advisers that "change you can believe in" is best pursued through accomplishments you can pass.

The article does not add much substance to the observations of Milbank and Klein -- except that it provides a lot of pithy quotes from Emanuel's Rolodex of friends, which will raise suspicion (yet again) about his (or his friends') connection to Washington Post writers. Overall, the article portrays Emanuel as a misunderstood and ignored voice of reason. It does not, however, take cheap shots at others in the White House (e.g., Jarrett, Axelrod) like the earlier essay by Milbank. Perhaps this is a sign that the Washington Post and Emanuel are responding to criticism of the earlier chapters in this love story.

Ironically, while Horowitz portrays Obama as ungrounded and Emanuel as a pragmatist, the media have typically portrayed Obama as a pragmatist and his liberal critics as unyielding ideologues. The political landscape has certainly changed.

At least one Washington Post writer is having no part in the Emanuel love fest. Colbert King, a huge Obama supporter, wrote a scathing article regarding Emanuel over the weekend. King basically argues that Obama is reaping what he sowed by picking a Washington insider to serve as Chief of Staff.

Rahm Emanuel: Ghostwriter for Dana Milbank?

Recently, Dana Milbank wrote an article that passionately defends White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel against a torrent of criticism. Many commentators have argued that Emanuel has been an ineffective strategist for the White House and have openly called for President Obama to fire him.

When I first read the article, I immediately suspected that much of its content probably came directly from Emanuel or from people close to him. The article barely pretends to approach the subject of Emanuel's performance objectively, and it is laced with anecdotes and perspectives that only Emanuel or someone very close to him could have provided.

For example, the article reports that Obama has rejected Emanuel's advice on various strategies and followed the advice of Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs. Milbank portrays Obama as the victim of the latter's bad advice. Milbank, however, would not know the specific moments of conflict between Obama's senior advisers unless someone very close to the White House informed him.

An article in Politico makes a plausible case that Milbank merely transcribed Emanuel's views. Others have also speculated about Milbank's source. In particular, Cenk Uygur of the Huffington Post argues that "Dana Milbank transcribed an article written by Rahm Emanuel today in The Washington Post. Never has an article been more clearly written to support a political benefactor."

In response to the Politico story, Milbank has denied that he spoke to Emanuel for his article. But it is less clear, however, whether Milbank spoke to someone very close to Emanuel. Milbank simply says that Emanuel's "people were. . .disinclined to help me with this column, out of fear of just the reaction that would occur: people would suggest he spoon fed it to me." Even if Emanuel's people were "disinclined" to contribute, this does not mean that they ultimately refused to speak to Milbank. If Milbank did not speak to Emanuel or persons close to him, then his portrayal of conflict in the White House lacks credibility. If Milbank spoke to Emanuel or his people, then he should have disclosed this fact. Either way, the story has a cloud over it.

RELATED STORY: OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)

In an apparent effort at humor, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has suggested that if Hillary Clinton had attended the recent Gates/Crowley "summit" at the White House, she would have ordered "Mad Bitch" beer. Milbank and Chris Cillizza, another Washington Post writer, lampooned the summit in their video "Mouthpiece Theatre," which jokingly described the meeting as the "Ménage à Stella Artois."

The Washington Post placed the video on its website but took it down following criticism from liberal bloggers (e.g., TPM) and from media watchdogs (e.g., Megan Garber's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review). Several blogs linked to a Youtube source for the video, but the user who submitted the file subsequently removed it. Dissenting Justice, however, has located the video from another source (see below).

Milbank, Sexism, Hillary Clinton and the Media
Normally, outlandish -- even sexist and racist -- "humor" does not exercise me. I have turned off my television, radio and exited many websites to escape humor that taps into gutter instincts. I even argued that the heated reaction to Don Imus and his racist and sexist commentary was overblown. But Milbank and Cillizza occupy a different position than Imus. They are not shock jocks. Instead, they are writers for one of the world's most esteemed newspapers, and people rely upon them and the Washington Post for political analysis. Accordingly, their sexist humor means a lot more than the rants of Don Imus.

Moreover, this recent flap seems to confirm observations of many commentators (myself included) who argued that the media, particularly male journalists, portrayed Clinton in sexist terms during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. In a May 2008 column, Milbank himself portrayed Clinton as a demented and masochistic individual because she remained a candidate in the extremely tight race -- even though the odds of her winning were evaporating. Male candidates, by contrast, have remained in presidential primaries without winning any states whatsoever, but their continued candidacy never resulted in such hysteria and criticism as Clinton's decision to keep going.

Recently, Milbank employed the "dumb Latina" stereotype that became pervasive in the analysis of many male commentators regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Milbank says that by choosing Sotomayor, President Obama "opted for biography over brain," and he concludes that she could not compete intellectually with other candidates. Milbank, however, offers no evidence for his conclusion.

Despite his harsh criticism of Clinton and almost unwavering support for Obama during the Democratic primaries, Milbank wrote Clinton "A Thank-You for 18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling," a reference to a famed statement from her concession speech. Ironically, Milbank (and other liberal male media figures, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) benefits from this glass ceiling, and his sexist commentary certainly does not help to dismantle it.

Media Matters has the video footage, which I have embedded.

[Note: The video condemns a slew of other individuals, including many Republicans.]

Ilya Shapiro and Dana Milbank Float the "Dumb Broad" Stereotype

Ilya Shapiro and Dana Milbank have joined a chorus of dudes who have floated the "dumb broad" trope in their "analysis" of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Ironically, while Shapiro pretends to condemn Obama's choice as rooted in identity politics rather than merit, his essay, which lacks any substantive review of Sotomayor's rulings, can only have credibility among people who are inclined to believe that a high-achieving women of color lacks intelligence.

Jeffrey Rosen was originally responsible for giving this narrative heels in a discredited article that he has twice disclaimed. Nevertheless, Shapiro and Milbank have kept the fans going, and Shapiro even cites to Rosen's original analysis.

Shapiro and Milbank Say Much, Prove Little
Shapiro and Milbank fail for the same reasons that plagued Rosen's analysis. Neither has analyzed anything in her writings that condemn her as a judge or as an intellectual. Shapiro says that Sotomayor has not issued any "important" decisions, but he never defines what this means. Even if one could define the term in this context, this would hardly disqualify her from the bench. While the Supreme Court has the luxury to take the "sexiest" and most compelling cases (because it has discretionary review for the most part), lower federal courts do not. They take cases as they come to them.

Also, during Sotomayor's tenure, the Second Circuit has not been the hotbed of judicial activity as the more ideologically partisan circuits, like the Ninth, Fourth and Fifth Circuits. It is more mainstream and tightly wrapped ideologically. Today's Second Circuit is not known for its blazing judicial battles. But the absence of opinions that provide dissertations on unresolved legal issues cannot mean Sotomayor is less qualified. The use of this standard would have rendered unqualified most of the justices in the Supreme Court's history.

I also find it disturbing that none of Sotomayor's negative reviewers demonstrates through independent analysis why Diane Wood or Elena Kagan -- persons whom Sotomayor is most often compared -- are more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Shapiro, for example, simply states that Sotomayor is "far less qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court" than Kagan or Wood. But Shapiro does not substantiate this claim by applying his own standards to Wood and Kagan. He does not cite to Wood's "important" decisions, and he does not review Kagan's articles that have reshaped legal analysis. Indeed, Kagan has a relatively thin publication record, given her acclaim and achievements, and many of her publications are in "home" journals (i.e., journals at the school where she taught) and are "tribute" articles that honor deceased jurists. Nevertheless, the popular analysis summarily describes Kagan as immensely qualified and Sotomayor as weak. What accounts for the difference?

I am not attempting to discredit either Kagan or Wood. Instead, I seek to reveal that Sotomayor's detractors have failed to make the case that she is an intellectual "lightweight" or that she is less qualified than others on the shortlist. Either her reviewers are sloppy journalists or they are moved to their positions by some motivation that has nothing to do with her work. Pick your poison.

PS
I had originally intended to include Jonathan Turley on the list with Shapiro and Milbank. Earlier Turley stated that Sotomayor "is not the intellectual powerhouse that many academics had hoped for." He now says that:

Like a number of other professors and commentators, I have expressed disappointment in the fact that Sotomayor’s opinions lack of deeper view of the law or any particularly profound observations on the law. Conservatives, however, take this lack of depth in these opinions as evidence that Sotomayor is not smart or competent. This is demonstrably absurd.

He more recent analysis offers a more engaging approach.