Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Pick: Broder on RFK, Milbank on Milbank

As The Fix (and the political world) waits for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to deliver her concession speech at noon, we offer up a few videos produced by our colleagues that are well worth a few minutes of your time.

The first features the Dean, David Broder, reflects on covering the abbreviated 1968 presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. It's incredibly powerful stuff.


And then there's Dana. Anyone who follows politics with even a passing interest does themselves a disservice if they don't read Dana Milbank's "Washington Sketch", which appears almost daily in the print paper.

Dana has been expanding his empire of late into video sketches that he does with the help of ace washingtonpost.com videographer Akira Hakuta.

On Monday, Dana traveled to Milbank, South Dakota to cover an event featuring former President Bill Clinton. Hilarity ensued. (If you are really looking to entertain yourself, count how many times Dana says "Milbank" in the four-minute video.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 7, 2008; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Framing The Clinton Legacy: Mending Fences with Black Voters
Next: With Legacy and Future in Mind, Clinton Ends Run

Comments

Sen Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats could choose. He is young, energetic and reminds one of the former little known Akansas governor Bill Clinton who use to speak about the bridge to future. Like when Bill Clinton first ran, the economy was tanking from a Bush presidencey and it was the young unknown politician talking change over the establishment. Sen. Obama will bring in all those people that want a change from the old Washington ways, he brings in something no other Democrat can, the potential for a huge African American turnout that could swing close states. He may win by a huge landslide.

Posted by: Scott | June 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Since Obama's resume is so thin and weak we need to be able to evaluate him based on his actions this year in this campaign.


1) He committed FRAUD against his own campaign theme in South Carolina

2) He falsely accused Gerry Ferraro of making "offensive remarks" and then carried on as if she had made horrible racial slurs to his face.

3) He attempted to win over Superdelegates with a racist argument that there would be "riots in the streets" if the superdelegates did not vote for the black man.

4) His conduct on several occassions was disrespectful, for instance going on stage while Hillary was still speaking so the networks would go to him - this was rude conduct


5) He ran his campaign in a racially divisive way - he sought to bully the whites into voting racially, and seeking out and making up FALSE CLAIMS OF RACIAL OFFENSE while seeking to unite the black community behind him along racial lines.


All I can say Obama is you can not have it both ways, you look like a complete hypocrite and a fraud.


We can add to that the OFFENSES AGAINST DEMOCRACY of Obama seeking to prevent the revotes in Michigan and Florida - and instead his supporters wanted those states to count HALF, instead of FULL, if those revotes took place - while that may look smart on the surface, it shows that his tactics are more SOVIET STYLE seeking to limit elections rather than empower people.


See, there are two strains within the BLACK community, one seeks to empower people, the other seeks government programs, hand-outs and is bascially more socialist. Clearly, Obama comes from the higher tax, socialist part of the black community.


The clear headed portion of the black community believes

1) One does not mix the gospel with politics.

2) Empowerment is the key to advancement


3) Working hard, getting ahead, without affirmative action or other hand-outs is the path out of poverty and the bad neighborhoods.


4) This group takes personal responsibility.


5) The empowerment people are personal-based, they do not care about Jim Crow or and they are not seeking compensation for something that happened to their grandparents or great-grandparents.

Obama is a confused man, not a leader.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

scrivener is an idiot who thinks Obama can win this election with no body like Napolitano or Sibelius.

Even with all the national and international problems, why is it that Obama is only slightly (or if any) better than McCain on national polls.

Any "generic" Democratic Party candidate would be ahead of John McCain by at least 12 points on national polls.

Let's face it, Obama is the weakest candidate Democratic Party has to offer since George McCovern. You know what happened to Senator McCovern. At least, Senator McGovern was better war hero than Senator McCain. Now, Senator Obama is what? Obama is Bush Lite at best.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Scrivener,

You post a lot of good stuff, but c'mon -- Gore's not going to be the nominee. I've posted the reasons before, I won't do it yet again.

Obama will be elected this November. The economy is way too bad, the war's too unpopular, and McCain's on the wrong side of both. For him to win would require misdirection Houdini couldn't have pulled off.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Please do not be ukulele (jumping flea) in supporting oBaman as long as we have "GD America" crowd people like scrivener.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HILLARY'S "ENDORSEMENT" OF OBAMA COMES OFF AS BEGRUDGING, REPLETE WITH POLITICAL DOUBLE-SPEAK, OBFUSCATION AND BARELY DISGUISED EQUIVOCATION.

THE REASON: SHE STILL BELIEVES THAT OBAMA CAN'T WIN AND RISKS BEING NEUTRALIZED BY FORCES DETERMINED TO KEEP AN INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL ELITIST FROM WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE."

-- scrivener (yesterday)

DID I CALL THIS ONE OR WHAT?

Oh yeah, she says six minutes into another "but let's talk about me" speech, I'm endorsing Obama -- after I engage in a repititous recitation of self-congratulatory platitudes and vow repeatedly to fight on.

Her "endorsement" of Obama seemed as though it was begrudgingly bookended into the same old Hillary self-valedictory. It was last Tuesday deja vu time, but finally with some rather tepid head-bobs toward Obama.

"Splendid." gushed Chris Matthews, whose scolding by the Clintons obviously has had a palliative effect on the softballer who claims to play "Hardball."

"Rose to the occasion," gushed tim Russert. Then the pundit insisted Obama needs Hilary to win over women voters -- as if Napolitano or Sibelius aren't better choices to align with his "change" message.

These people live in a parallel universe. They write their scripts prior to these live events then spew their pre-determined analysis, seemingly oblivious to Hillary's purposeful nuances.

How both CNN and MSNBC can say Hillary gave her "full-throated" support shows how delusional and self-fulfilling they are.

How many times did Hillary say she would never give up, fight on, never quit. She repeated the notion so many times that her own future was the major "take away," not her endorsement of Obama.

Now Hillary's real work begins -- to quietly sabotage Obama's campaign so that he is not nominated on the first ballot. Can you say "DENVER!"??

But it won't work. The supers know what she's up to. And they have a four-letter word as their answer, should the Obama candidacy implodes: G-O-R-E.

Posted by: scrivener | June 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You punks talking trash about the great David Broder had better watch your smart mouths. Would you like that I take care of them for you, Mr. Broder sir?

Posted by: bondjedi | June 7, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Why do HIllary supporters continue to foam at the mouth? The war is over, there is a new war to be fought. All the self-centered I am so angry about poor Hillary just are feeding into her own self victimization when they should say all done, the past is not going to change, we lost. Idle threats about voting are lame as to be more than laughable. Vote against self-interest and vote against everything your candidate was supposedly for. She lost her message when she deviated into her arguments about sexism when she played the sex card several times during her campaign - just rmember her big crocodile tears that the big boys were beating on her. Everyone else has been blamed for her mistakes but her, join her in self pity if you want but you are not going to make any dent in sexism by taking your marbles and going home. All you going to do is guy or destroy Rowe vs Wade for starters, and who knows what else. But who I am I to say this? A 50 yr old women who has been around the track more than once.

Posted by: nclwtk | June 7, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Chris you have no idea how much of a fool David Broder is, and you and your peers ruin your credibility following the village idiot. He proved again yesterday in his chat that lying about sex is high crimes to him but lying us into a sinful and awful war is a-ok. God help us, the media is led by a fool.

Posted by: Greg in LA | June 7, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I newly appreciate how Broder earned the honorific, "The Dean". Thanks, Chris, for showcasing his short masterpiece capturing the excitement echoed now.

Posted by: jhbyer | June 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

It is the epitome of laziness for a post to consist of recommendations of efforts by your fellow reporters. Milbank had written about his visit to Milbank (a matter of concern, apparently, only to people named "Milbank") a few days ago, so this isn't even new non-news.

Maybe if the Post made its reporters, you know, REPORT, readership wouldn't have dropped 200K and they wouldn't have had to offer buyouts to hundreds of people who once actually reported. Instead, it seems like everybody's auditioning for cable TV or researching their next book (the radio experiment was hilarious: people mildly qualified in their field of endeavor seeking to branch out. That had success written all over it.) If I wanted wire copy, I could buy the Newark Star-Ledger and save some money.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Fix, I always enjoy your column and appreciate these "best of" offerings.

I was kind of shocked by how the MSM didn't do more with the anniversary of the RFK assassination. Definitely a muted coverage. Hillary's unfortunate comment seems to have taken the air out of tributes, historical context articles, and all the other treatment I had expected in print and on TV, similar to the MLK anniversary earlier this year. Glad Broder spoke up at least.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 7, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Amazing. Who knew Broder once had functioning brain cells. After his endorsement of Clinton impeachment & insufferably stupid & complict defense of an illegal $3 trillion war that had killed hundreds of thousands, everyone else but the Post has noticed he is brain dead.

Posted by: tom | June 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

How did Obama and the DNC screw Clinton?

Remember, It was NOT the Democrats in Florida who advanced the Florida primary date, it was the Republican Governor and the Republican State government knowing that doing this they would thus disenfranchise the Democrat voters.

(See the Washpost on 5/3/07 for details)

For Obama and the DNC then to give the Florida delegates only 1/2 a vote for what the Republicans did is a scandal.

Regarding Michigan. 40% voted in that primary for uncommitted. At that time, besides Clinton and Obama, there were 6 men running. Why assume that Obama should get all those delegates.

Posted by: Peter B | June 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Why does WaPo indulge a certain coward, discredited by posting anonymously, who continually pops up on this thread with the same old, same old ad nauseum?

Why does WaPo state that "entries that are unsigned...will be removed" only to indulge this one grotesquely repetitive fool? Would Chris be so kind as to comment?

Posted by: jhbyer | June 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I GREW UP IN MILBANK,SD AND I HAVE A DANA MILBANK BOOK I WAS ON ABLE TO COME TO MILBANK TO SEE MR .MILBANK LAST WEEK, BUT MR.MILBANKS BOOK IS GREAT BUY ONE NOW! MILBANK IS GREAT THE PEOPLE ARE GREAT MILBANK IS JUST MILBANK, THERE IS A SIGN THAT HANGS ACROSS THE MAIL STREET THAT SAYS YOU'LL LIKE MILBANK, THATS RIGHT YOU'LL LIKE MILBANK, THE SIGN SAYS IT ALL MILBANK, SAY HELLO TO THE GODFATHER MR.MILBANK(DANA) G ODD BLESS AND TALK SOON A PAT RESIDENT OF MILBANK

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I GREW UP IN MILBANK,SD AND I HAVE A DANA MILBANK BOOK I WAS ON ABLE TO COME TO MILBANK TO SEE MR .MILBANK LAST WEEK, BUT MR.MILBANKS BOOK IS GREAT BUY ONE NOW! MILBANK IS GREAT THE PEOPLE ARE GREAT MILBANK IS JUST MILBANK, THERE IS A SIGN THAT HANGS ACROSS THE MAIL STREET THAT SAYS YOU'LL LIKE MILBANK, THATS RIGHT YOU'LL LIKE MILBANK, THE SIGN SAYS IT ALL MILBANK, SAY HELLO TO THE GODFATHER MR.MILBANK(DANA) G ODD BLESS AND TALK SOON A PAT RESIDENT OF MILBANK

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Trolls leave tells. One is a tenuous grip on the English language: in this case "judgement" for "judgment."

Posted by: Lonely Pedant | June 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

These blogs don't even have good trolls. These silly posts that no one reads by Republicans are ridiculous. If you are going to be a troll at least be a good one you are even a failure as a troll.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I've seen posts like "nameless June 7, 2008 9:26 AM" before, Obama is a racist. I don't get it. Rev Wright is a racist, but Obama dumped him. Bill Clinton said some questionable things in SC, but what has Obama said. And don't go making stuff up like Fox Noise does.

The presumption is that "nameless June 7, 2008 9:26 AM" and others with similar 'thinking' are just GOP trolls. They're stirring the pot because their candidate is hopeless geriatric waist-deep in the Big Muddy of Lobbyists.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Read comments there and will reserve judgement on Chris. Just need to know one thing. Is that letter bogus, or what?

Posted by: Watson | June 7, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Clearly Obama's nomination is tainted - he played dirty racial tricks which were out of bounds.

well.


The Michigan situation in which Obama's people sought to PREVENT a revote was so UnAmerican that people should be questioning Obama's commitment to democracy.

Obama seems to believe that it is OK to break the rules if somehow it will enable a black man to get compensated for some historical injustice, even if Obama's family was out of country in Africa during Jim Crow and even if half his family is white.


The hypocrisy and the nastiness of the Obama people - then they CLAIM they are for unity - what a joke - the Obama people are DIVIDING this nation - when Obama calls for two standards one for whites one for blacks - that is DIVISIVE. I am sick of Obama's double talk and double speak. He is a liar who lies about Bill Clinton. While that takes some doing, they are cut from the same horrible nasty ugly cast.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Clearly Obama's nomination is tainted - he played dirty racial tricks which were out of bounds.

well.


The Michigan situation in which Obama's people sought to PREVENT a revote was so UnAmerican that people should be questioning Obama's commitment to democracy.

Obama seems to believe that it is OK to break the rules if somehow it will enable a black man to get compensated for some historical injustice, even if Obama's family was out of country in Africa during Jim Crow and even if half his family is white.


The hypocrisy and the nastiness of the Obama people - then they CLAIM they are for unity - what a joke - the Obama people are DIVIDING this nation - when Obama calls for two standards one for whites one for blacks - that is DIVISIVE. I am sick of Obama's double talk and double speak. He is a liar who lies about Bill Clinton. While that takes some doing, they are cut from the same horrible nasty ugly cast.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE USED RACE IN A CAMPAIGN THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POST-RACIAL.

He should have thought about that before he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Bill Clinton in South Carolina.


Obama was never offended.

He should have thought about what would happen down the road BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.


What a pathetic man Obama is.


NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain.


What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina??


What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war???


What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year???


WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate?


WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that)


WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Fix are you abandoning your last article?
You've been called out several times for lack of disclosure. Powerful stuff there also. Racism, Cover ups, a interesting letter indeed. What say you about keeping silent? Go get'em big guy!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"Milbank on Milbank"

Milbank writes well, sometimes, but I am always left with the feeling that the underlying theme is always Milbank on Milbank. I think he entertains himself more than anybody else.

Posted by: Helena Montana | June 7, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

I counted 26 "Milbank" utterances by Dana Milbank, including variations like "Milbankian", etc. This does not count the number of time other people said "Milbank" nor the number of times the word "Milbank" appeared in print.

I'd guess the grand total to be closer to 40.

Sigh. I need a life. Maybe I should join the exciting world of political journalism.

Posted by: egc52556 | June 7, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

What tales of mirth and woe...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 7, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company