During a June 2 online chat hosted by washingtonpost.com, Washington Post columnist David Broder was asked by a reader: “When can we expect an article from you on the marriages and divorces of the top Republican contenders for the presidential race of '08?” Apparently not recognizing the reader's reference to Broder's May 25 Post column, in which Broder defended New York Times reporter Patrick Healy's May 23 article that purported to examine the state of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) marriage to former President Bill Clinton, Broder answered: “Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that.”

Later in the same discussion, however, Broder was asked specifically about his May 25 column, and once again defended it, claiming: “As a general rule, I would shy away from discussions about the personal life of a public figure. But the Clintons have presented themselves to the public as a couple.” But Broder's latest defense of the column failed to account for the fact that most married presidential candidates present themselves and their spouses to the public “as a couple.” Indeed, candidates who have campaigned without their spouse have been singled out and scrutinized for doing so.

Broder's own paper printed a January 2004 article dissecting the decision of Judith Steinberg Dean, wife of then-Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, not to appear on the campaign trail with her husband. According to the January 18, 2004, Post article:

It's 2004. Do voters still need to see The Wife?

Campaigns always have been conducted on the assumption that they do. Whether outspoken on the trail or mute, The Wife stands in testimony to the candidate's capacity to make an emotional connection. In Iowa today, in a final frenzied push toward tomorrow's caucuses, the wives of the men who would be president are politicking, smiling, clapping. The current woman in the job, Laura Bush, has steadily been headlining her own luncheon fundraisers for Bush-Cheney 2004, hauling in more than $5 million in donations.

One woman is missing, and that is Steinberg, 50. She has appeared beside her husband only once, on the day he formally announced his candidacy last summer, and she bought a red suit for the occasion. The networks play this same clip of them over and over, because it's the only one they have.

[...]

Defying convention poses a potential problem for Dean, suggest some historians and strategists.

“I think Dean will be in trouble if she doesn't do at least something,” said Molly Meijer Wertheimer, a Pennsylvania State University professor and editor of a book about first ladies' rhetoric. “There are a lot of traditionalists in the country, and they'll expect her to appear, and they won't understand if she doesn't.”

“Look, voters are loathe to judge other people's marriages, but they feel entitled to peek at the full package,” Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said, “so that they can feel comfortable with the person behind the political persona. They are inviting this person into their living rooms for the next four or eight years, and the marriage is the most rudimentary touchstone to someone in a position of power and authority. A spouse humanizes a candidate.”

Also, Broder's claim that the Clintons' marriage merits scrutiny while the media should shy away from discussions about the personal lives of other public figures conflicts with his own earlier writing about the newsworthiness of affairs involving former President Clinton, as well as those involving previous presidents and presidential candidates, as Media Matters for America noted when Broder last defended his May 25 column. In the wake of then-candidate Bill Clinton's appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes with Hillary Clinton in 1992 to respond to tabloid accusations of a long-term affair, Broder wrote: “It's a whole lot more useful to voters to understand why Bill Clinton has won the trust and admiration of people in both parties over his 20 years in politics than to know the details of his private life.”

From Broder's June 2 online discussion:

Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Broder, I'm normally a huge fan of yours. I have to say though that I was pretty disappointed with your recent column which covered Senator Clinton's energy policy speech by talking all about her marriage (and clothing choice). You did get around to talking about her proposals in about the eighth paragraph I think, which was nice -- but then seemingly couldn't help jumping obsessively back to the “elephant in the living room” for a finale paragraph.

Frankly it wasn't worthy of the Post's fine reputation. So far it seems like the party line at the Post is: “we are focusing on Mrs. Clinton's marriage in our coverage of her because it is likely to be a main focus in the media's coverage of her”. The tautological nature of this chicken-or-egg rationalization should be painfully obvious. Please try to leave this kind of commentary to Soap Opera Digest in the future. Many thanks, and I look forward to enjoying your future columns.

David S. Broder: Thank you for your message. I received a lot of criticism for the column on Senator Clinton, and I take the criticism seriously. As a general rule, I would shy away from discussions about the personal life of a public figure. But the Clintons have presented themselves to the public as a couple -- beginning with his statement as a candidate, “Buy One. Get one free.” They are deeply involved in each other's public life, as witness his role at the New York Democratic convention that just nominated her for a second term.

It is a fact of political life -- as reflected in the New York Times story -- that political people contemplating the possibility of her presidential candidacy are concerned about the role he would play in the campaign and in the administration. That concern is heightened by the history of the Clintons' marriage, which I do not have to rehearse here. But I cannot pretend that the concern does not exist when, in fact, it is a major topic of discussion.

As for Senator Clinton's policy views, they are not being neglected by the Post. My colleague Dan Balz wrote an exhaustive piece about her policy views just a day or two after my column.

Notably, then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton made the “Buy One. Get one free” statement -- which Broder mentioned in the chat as a reason to scrutinize the Clintons' marriage -- several times before Broder chastised the media for digging into “the details of his private life.” So, while Broder now cites the statement as justification for scrutiny of the Clintons' personal lives today, that view appears to be a change from 1992, when, despite the Clintons' “Buy One. Get one free” statement, Broder criticized the media for their focus on their private lives.

Notwithstanding his defense of his column to the reader from Bethesda, later in the chat, Broder was asked specifically about the Times' article on the Clintons' marriage and whether he agreed that the exhaustive attention Healy accorded to “personal questions about how much time they spend together and such” was “inappropriate.” Broder responded simply: “I agree that it is the Clintons' business, and no one else's, how they manage their personal lives”:

Rochester, N.Y.: I think that there is a necessary distinction that isn't being made regarding coverage of the Clintons' marriage. You seem to be saying that, given Bill Clinton's stature, Hillary's marriage will inevitably be a topic of discussion since Bill might be likely to influence her policy decisions and so on. But that isn't the same thing as asking personal questions about how much time they spend together and such. Wouldn't you agree there is a distinction? And that the NYT article (which you defended) focused not only on the relevant issues but also on irrelevant personal issues? It came awfully close to asking “do they really love each other”? Wouldn't you agree that that is inappropriate?

washingtonpost.com: The Shadow of a Marriage (Post, May 25)

David S. Broder: I agree that it is the Clintons' business, and no one else's, how they manage their personal lives.