DC Punditry

Digby, quote of the day on DC punditry:

I suppose it could also be argued that the DC pundits are just not as smart as the rest of us but I doubt it. They aren't stupid or uninformed. Still, results are results and there must be a reason why so many members of the political media have been so wrong so often for the past decade and a half. Out here in the hinterlands, a whole bunch of us have been able to see through what was going on, while it was going on. It's not just partisanship and it's not just a fluke. From the silly travel office flap in 1993 until David Broder's heinous little screed yesterday, there is a long continuum of establishment petulance, confusion, triviality and error. If it isn't their proximity to those who are spinning them, I can only assume that they are either dumb, craven or Republican. It's got to be something.

I've been reading blogs long enough to remember the "alternative" views of the impending war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a widely held view in the so-called "liberal" blogosphere that both were wild adventures. Afghanistan was seen as necessary, but necessary to do right. Iraq was very largely seen as an unnecessary trumped up joke that would not turn out well.

Where's the accountability? The same tired and wrong faces continue to show up as the sage anaylsts in newspapers and teevee. Why aren't some of those who were accurate in their prognositications having careers made on their ability to accurate assess the situation? Why do we continue to be exposed to those same wrong "analysts"?