did you read his SCATHING response to Gore's acceptance speech?
the speech that almost ALL the herdled whores like Broder dismissed as garbage, but that catapulted him past Boo-sh in the polls, apparently because, unlike Broder (who admitted he DOZED off during said speech) they connected with what he had to say.
it took the mightiest of efforts by cynical hacks like Broder (masquerading as unbiased observers of the political process) to turn the tide back in favor of those who were able to climb back out of their boiler room of blastfax machinegun character assassination, and get close enough to steal the election.
you should go to his archived columns and take some time to read his swill. I usually read enough of it when it appears in my daily fishtrainer to see how often he's forgotten to take his marching orders from whomever it may be, cause he clearly hasn't thought for himself in a long time.
EDIT
making it easy for you, here's the Howler on that speech/Broder's response
On August 17, 2000, Candidate Gore gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. Three days later, Broder reviewed the hopeful’s address. In his column, The Dean expressed eye-rolling condescension towards Candidate Gore’s attention to substance. Indeed, Gore focussed on policy matters so much, Broder almost fell asleep, The Dean said.
How did Broder assess Gore’s address? The Dean of All Pundits was very upset with Gore’s attention to policy. “In tone and substance, Vice President Al Gore’s acceptance speech…was like nothing I have heard in 40 years of covering both parties’ quadrennial gatherings,” he began. “Usually these acceptance speeches are attempts to take you to the mountaintop and show you the future. Gore’s was more a request to step inside a seminar room, listen closely and take notes.” As he continued, Broder mocked Gore’s attention to substance.
“One more paragraph and he would have been onto the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” the scribe groused. “He mentioned only three aspects of what was, in fact, a significant record in the House and Senate,” The Dean wrote. “But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president.” (Imagine that!) And then, in the pages of the Washington Post, readers learned that Gore’s address had almost put The Dean to sleep! Gore had done well on some issues, Broder said.
“But I have to confess, my attention wandered as he went on through page after page of other swell ideas, and somewhere between hate crimes legislation and a crime victim’s constitutional amendment, I almost nodded off.”
OK, he stayed awake, but the above rant was from memory.....over three years ago
Broder made no effort to hide his condescension for Gore—or for the “swell ideas” the hopeful discussed. But so it went as the Washington press corps expressed its contempt for the troubling Dem hopeful. And so it went as pundits expressed their contempt for all talk about issues.but wait.....there's more
In his column about Gore’s address, Broder rattled off the fatuous spin-points which had long been used to disparage Gore’s character. Incredibly, the fancy hotel was in his piece; so was invented the Internet—and so was Love Story. Nor did Broder fail to note that Gore “often has been accused of attack-dog tactics” and “often drags out his sentences in pedantic fashion.”
For the record, The Dean had offered no such remarks when he devoted a column to Bush’s convention speech, which had been delivered in Philadelphia two weeks earlier. How did Broder describe Bush’s address? “Lifted by an acceptance speech of exceptional eloquence and powered by a party enjoying unusual unity, Texas Gov. George W. Bush embarks on the final stage of his quest for the White House with prospects that almost measure up to his brimming self-confidence,” The Great Dean began. I'd forgotten just HOW nauseatingly whorish that column was,and how completely he revealed his biases in that pathetically venal screed
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032603.shtmlscroll down past barnicle