Glenn has the gory details and exhaustive documentation. dday has the video.

The gist: in this exchange on ABC's This Week yesterday (transcript also courtesy dday), Cokie indulged in the Beltway Hack Pundits' favorite trick of lying to viewers/readers by attributing the pundits' own personal opinions to the Regular People of the American majority, in direct opposition to the overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary in the form of opinion polls.

VANDEN HEUVEL: If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is--

VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions.

Vanden Heuvel's right, of course. This war was never "winnable" in any sense that matters, from the moment it was illegally and immorally (and stupidly!) launched based on lies against a sovereign nation that had not attacked us and was no credible or imminent threat to do so. To a nation like ours that endlessly proclaims its commitment to democracy, human rights and rule of law, nothing that could ever be meaningfully called "winning" or "victory" was EVER salvageable from such a beginning, and its proponents have never been able to articulate any definition of "winning" that would make it so -- for the obvious reason that that's impossible. From the day of infamy when Bush pulled the trigger 5 years ago, the only issue has been one of damage control -- how to best salvage the least-bad outcome still attainable from the Bush debacle.

But back to the immediate point. As Glenn shows definitely and at length (including links to past examples), this is just the latest in a VERY long history of Beltway Hack Pundits deceiving their readers/viewers in this way (i.e., by pretending their own misguided opinions represent the American people). (emphasis added)

Compare what Roberts said to these facts [cited poll data]. What she did is just outright lying. It would [be] no different than if these journalists went on TV and insisted that most Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, or that they don't want health care reform, or that they want to attack Iran, or that they favored Clinton's impeachment. Public opinion is ascertainable by polling data.

Public opinion on the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq is unambiguous and it has been for a long time. Large majorities of the public favor withdrawal regardless of whether we're "winning." To say otherwise -- as establishment journalists like Roberts continuously do -- is just rank deceit. How else can one phrase that?

[Well, Glenn, since you asked: Alternatively, the only other possibility is that it's rank fraud -- i.e., presumably Cokie's booked for her purportedly vast political knowledge and insight. So if she's actually not deliberately deceiving viewers, but is instead as clueless regarding actual public opinion as this exchange suggests, then she's clearly taking ABC to the cleaners in fraudulently allowing herself to be booked as a political expert.--t.]

And why shouldn't ABC News make that clear, retract that statement the way they would any other factually false claim made by one of their journalists?

What these journalists actually do -- as they prance around as Spokespeople for the Regular Americans -- is attempt to render public opinion completely inconsequential. When it comports with what the political establishment wants, they tout it as democracy in action, as the establishment speaking for The American People. When public opinion rejects what they're doing, they just lie about it and pretend that people agree with them. The more honest establishment mavens just ignore public opinion altogether and insist that they know what's best for the People.

The snide dismissal of public opinion as irrelevant by people like The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray -- and most recently by Dick Cheney -- is far preferable to the dishonest distortions of Cokie Roberts . . .

Andrew Sullivan, George Stephanopoulos, among the worst in this regard. Chris Matthews, the Emperor of them all. When was the last time ANY of them spoke to an average (non- Washington DC-based) American citizen? They have NO CLUE as to what average American people want or are thinking, imho.

I have to agree that Matthews owns it (with Russert and Dowd right up there and, if the only criterion's blatant dishonesty, perhaps with a slight edge even on Matthews; but Cokie's no slouch!).

It's like the Olympics of media bias & Clinton-bashing, no?

Dowd is almost literally insane in her Hillary hating; she needs psychological help, imho.

I'll keep a more close eye on Cokie from now on, thanks. Did you see the piece in today's Daily Howler about Russert, Frank Rich & C. Matthews and Jack Welch, ex. of GE? A must-read ... what a bunch of hypocrites, for sure.

You know, I've watched these women bash Hillary, the worst was that comedian who wasn't funny. It was like listening to middle schoolers get into the verbal fight before the real fight, that you can't break up cuz you aren't allowed to touch the kids. A roll the eyes, and just go "lordy, lordy"

I am beginning to believe it is because these females on the air, can't eat. They are sitting there pissed that Hillary is the gargantuan size of 6 and has hips. Hillary is even known to munch on veggie burgers. I just think these women get so incensed that another woman is eating food....they lose it, totally can completely.

You know women need to eat. Gain 30 lbs, do your own damn research studies on food.

Join an American Indian Tribe.

Exploit the new law that says that a person "cannot be discriminated against for genetic predisposition" and go out there and eat without throwing up after.

We should mail food to these women. Linguini, a nice roll, maybe even go crazy and give them extra olives on their salads.

Do these women know yet, that not eating might get them more interest but it doesn't give them better sex.

But instead of ranting at Hillary, who really does watch her figure. They should start ranting at those guys who they anchor next to and are real porkers. Oink Oink. What is with the guys on the news. They sit next to a woman who if it wasn't for her head, you wouldn't know was there, and they look like freckin Tweedle dee, flip the channel to find the next guy anchor, Tweedle dum.

And have you noticed that the women on TV now a days all look alike. I have to tell them apart by their voices. Forget race, they all look alike period.

identical-looking 25 year old chippies or some such, the other night on Charlie Rose show! We were on the floor, laughing.

Even the two oldest of them, Leslie Stahl and Andrea Mitchell both somewhere around 60, appear to be a size TWO, if that.

It's a very unhealthy trend & one that does not bode well for the society. Ted Turner said if he were still running CNN, he would fire all of them & bring back (first name?) Woodward to CNN -- apparently, she got let go because she is now over ... GASP -- 50! Lucky for her, she got picked up by PBS and is now very visible on Lehrer's NewsHour. But then, Lehrer himself is something like 67 or so.

What a really funny, as well as perceptive, post, j! I am so glad that you found this Fray; your presence here is making it bearable for me. Best, "L."