Atrios and Yglesias are both on the case of David Broder's apparent equation of a blow job with segregation. I have had a special place in my heart for David Broder for quite some time. Being "the dean of the Washington press corps" his opinion holds as much sway in the establishment media as, say, Atrios does in the blogosphere. However, Atrios, unlike Broder, doesn't think that sacrificing the truth to expediency is necessary to avoid chaos. Especially since Atrios has no vested interest (so far) in maintaining the social order that might be brought down by said chaos. For that is the essence of David Broder. During the 2000 fiasco, he might have agreed that Gore was getting a raw deal, in private. But he would have sided with those who said that the American way of life would have been reduced to chaos if Gore were chosen. Why? Because the Republicans would be much less willing to go along with such a decision (witness how they treated Clinton, a President whose election was much cleared then Gore's). This is the philosphy that states that it is better to perpetuate a lie (that Bush is the legitimate President) then to risk the chaos that would result if the real choice of the people were allowed to govern. In other words, Broder knows that the Republicans are thugs while the Democrats are not (in fact, they are quite the opposite, but that is another rant). But peace is better then dispute, so the thugs should be allowed to rule. This is the essence of the Broderization of the establishment media: it is there to protect the social order of the establishment, not to advance any idealistic cause such as truth. The fact that Broder is the dean of that establishment has nothing to do with it I am sure.