Why the Ben Rhodes profile in the New York Times Magazine is just gross.

Don't mistake the flack selling the policy for the persons making it. It suited the author's goals to make Rhodes seem really important. There's enough error in the piece to make me suspect that was its biggest error of all.

 

Possibly, but I've not seen much denial from the foreign policy types in The White House.
Many seem to want to vilify the writer. I think he deserves a lot of credit for the original idea
to do a story on Rhodes and then actually doing one that has generated a lot of discussion.
Unless made up there is some really quality detail and not the typical bland stories on policy wonks.

 

I really don't get him either but he did paint a hell of a scene for the 1951 Giants / Dodgers NLCS
with Jackie Gleason and Frank Sinatra.

 

That section of Underworld should have been a standalone novella. His work is really hit or miss. His football novel, The End Zone, was a miss and I abandoned it halfway through

 

There may be errors in the story, or there may be scenes left to interpretation...but it's hard to argue with Rhodes' belief that the Washington political reporter class is young and stupid; you'd have to have lived under a rock the past year to not agree with him.

 

They don't know anything, and because they're liberal and idealistic, they tend to not be skeptical of information given to them by the Obama administration.

They're not much different than SEC fanboi websites.

Just being on Ben Rhodes blast email list validates them.

 

Giv'em a chance to spring to Obama and they would?

 

Digital Piñata is a #greatbandname

 

Turns out, he's not a NEOCON. He's just a liberal dem, who supports the Iran deal, with reservations.

 

If it's good (with reservations) for Leon ...

 

Samuels is a JEW!!

Of course he's a pro-Israel NEOCON, who wants to preventively bomb Iran.