Cohen whines and moans, but doesn't get it

After writing a rather unfavorable critique of Stephen Colbert's Correspondents' Dinner performance, the WaPo's Richard Cohen received thousands of emails, and decided to write a column about "the hatred" with with they were laden--even though, "Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails." That didn't stop him from drawing some wide conclusions about all of the senders, though. Of course not.

The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.

After opening "only a few" of the emails he received, how, exactly, is he coming to such conclusions? And why on earth is he making this about the Iraq War and its dissenters? Is he really that dim, or has he truly missed the irony of a member of the press being dismissive of Colbert's having taken the press to task for its failings, thereby justifying the very performance for which he showed contempt?

PSoTD hits the nail firmly on the head.

I'd be willing to accept the news media's growing "the left bloggers are so mean and angry" if they would even try to figure out why we're angry. They take no responsibility. Is it because we've watched these people fritter away their responsibilities, year after year, to speak truth to power, or just the plain truth for the sake of truth? Is it because we see many of them as fattened guinea pigs held in the cages of Washington politicians, with no effort to do anything for themselves? Is it because we see many of them culpable in spreading the lies, and hiding the truth, of the current Republican regime? Is it because we believe that many of them as holding their jobs as a matter of privilege and not retaining it based on any marketplace value analysis?

Yes, yes, yes, yes. … You're everything you complained Colbert was except honest. So shut up about it already.

Cohen's not just blithely ignorant of why we're angry, though. He's also irritated by being accused of having a political agenda, which Digby deftly handles, noting: "But far be it for me to say he has a political agenda. I frankly don't think he does. He is just easily upset by human beings who object to being treated like imbeciles by sniffing sycophants like Richard Cohen and don't feel like taking his condescending shit anymore." Heh.

There could be a moral to this story: A Beltway journalist actually listening to his critics, finally understanding from whence their anger comes, and writing a column about that, resolving to be the kind of journalist the country wants and needs. But something tells me that isn't going to happen. It's just so much easier to draw useless parallels between war dissenters then and now.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)