Putting aside her professional failings, which were very serious, plagiarism is one of the most serious sins in academia, why does anyone take Doris Kearns Goodwin seriously? As Atrios point out, she has said so many stupid things, such as this one on Bush's Mission Accomplished stunt:

Well, you see, I think what worked about the speech the other night was not only the imagery. The imagery is a kind of static thing, even the plane going in, but what made it work was partly what David said. There’s a war behind it. It was a real event, and by speaking to those soldiers who were on their way home, it gave it such an emotional connection between him and the soldiers, just like when Reagan spoke on the anniversary of D-Day before that incredible rock. And people had climbed up that rock and those rangers were there. There’s a connection then between the commander in chief and the troops that you cannot take away. So I think it is crazy to criticize it. I think it was a good thing he did for himself, for the country and the Democrats have plenty of other things to criticize, but it’s silly to go on about that.

(Emphasis supplied.) Doris Kearns Goodwin is silly, to put it mildly. Tim Russert is grilling George Tenet this morning on all the things he said in the past. When do pundits get grilled for all the things they said in the past? When is there accountability for them?