
While the full article is not yet online for non-subscribers, reviews say that the gist of it is that he was just a mouthepiece for the Washington inside crowd and that his reputation for hard hitting questions followed a predictable and impotent pattern when it came to driving real action in the nation's capital.
Since I've yet to read it, I'll withhold judgement, but it is a welcome breath of fresh air on the the guy after all the practically-obscene praise he was getting for a while.
1 comment:
I wonder what evidence the article will have, or if it is just an opportunity piece to capitalize on the backlash on the russert worship?
I'll keep my eye on for a leak.
Post a Comment