Supplemental: Jonathan Alter kicks off a new feature!

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2015

Donald Trump isn’t “The Donald:”
Over the weekend, we decided we’d introduce a new running feature this week. It would concern an annoying aspect of the press corps’ coverage of Candidate Trump.

Examples of the widespread practice can’t really be searched for. We knew we’d have to wait until someone triggered our new feature through their silly, formulaic work.

This morning, the honors went to Jonathan Alter! We’re sorry, but it’s way past time for major scribes to drop this lazy piddle:
ALTER (8/17/15): Trump disgusts me and I’m sure he disgusts Clinton. He is hardly a model for her behavior or anyone else’s. But Hillary has a lot to learn from The Donald about how to handle herself in the circus that has become our politics. Trump could teach Clinton a thing or two about trust, risk-taking, and counter-punching. Instead of feeling embarrassed for celebrity-slumming at his wedding, she should ask herself every so often: WWDD. What Would Donald Do?
Earth to so-called press corps:

You know that fellow, Candidate Trump? His name really isn’t “The Donald.” Now that he’s actually running for president, we’re routinely amazed, and not amazed, when journalists refer to him in their favorite silly/fun nickname-y way.

Question:

Is there anything our upper-end journalists are able to treat in a serious, professional manner? Endlessly, the answer seems to be no.

We’ll list offenders as they appear in this, our new running feature. But this is the basic idea:

You can call him “Mister Trump” or “Candidate Trump.” You can call him “Johnson” or “Jackson.”

But guess what? Except in the childish minds of these life forms, he actually isn’t “The Donald.” You might want to throw away “Hillary” too, although confusion with another Clinton may complicate this practice.

Journalists today just wanna have fun. It isn’t just Rachel Maddow!

And now for a bit of the rest of the story: A great deal of Alter’s piece doesn’t seem to make sense to us. (We are not assuming “innocence” on Clinton’s part in the email matter.)

For one example, Alter’s reasoning here is highly familiar. But it doesn’t quite seem to parse:
ALTER: But Hillary is not a lovable rogue like her husband. She is cleaner than Bill but wears less Teflon. The pattern with her going back to her days as first lady is a cover-up—or at least suspicious damage control—without a crime. Recall her disastrous “Pretty in Pink” press conference on the largely phony Whitewater scandal (which made her seem dodgy and legalistic); her misplacing of the Rose law firm billing records (which made her appear as if she was hiding something when the records showed nothing); and her testimony before a grand jury (which made her look like a crook when she wasn’t).
Questions:

If Whitewater was largely phony, in what way did that “disastrous” press conference make Clinton seem “dodgy and legalistic?” Wasn’t that merely a hackish press corps script?

(By the way, is some purpose served by continuing to use the belittling “Pretty in Pink” designation?)

If the billing records eventually showed that Clinton hadn’t been hiding something, why does Alter refer to this episode as “a cover-up—or at least suspicious damage control?” Why doesn’t he simply say that Clinton has often been wrongly accused and judged by the mainstream press in the past?

In what way did Clinton’s testimony to that grand jury “make her look like a crook,” since Alter says she actually wasn’t? In all these designations, isn’t Alter simply repeating the scripts of his deeply horrible guild—a guild he lacks the courage, the decency and the honesty to stand up and challenge directly?

Donald Trump isn’t “The Donald.” Is Jonathan Alter a journalist now, or one more hack in the guild?

63 comments:

  1. The MaddowskettersAugust 17, 2015 at 1:38 PM

    The Puppy likes your adamant new demand for seriousness Blogger Somerby. We are sure many of The Professors will too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maddowsketeers, as in Mouseketeers. Sketters are the awful bugs on Falling Skies.

      Delete
    2. Did you mean the bugs on the Awful Falling Skies.

      But meeska, mooska, @ 2:20, thanks for the correction.

      Delete
  2. Where was B.S. when the media referred to Reagan as The Gipper even after he became POTUS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe Mr. Somerby was in the bloggin business back in POTUS Gipper's day. No one had taken the initiative in creating the internet.

      Delete
    3. Have you seen the movie Pretty in Pink? You will understand why that reference is demeaning whereas a Gipper references is not (a part Reagan actually played). In general, I agree with you and Somerby -- it was disrespectful to refer to the president that way.

      Delete
    4. @2:11

      Really? The Pentagon was using the internet back in 1969. B.S. was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun when Reagan became the 40th POTUS. The historical American political nickname trend escaped B.S.'s nose for news since he went into the fish wrapper business in 1978.

      Delete
    5. Somerby has never worked a day as a reporter in his life.

      If he had he would have worked one day longer than you have, on the other hand.

      Delete
    6. @2:34 -- If you mean he has never been paid for writing articles that appeared in a newspaper, you are incorrect.

      It is difficult to tell from bylines whether articles anywhere are written by part-time stringers, are solicited or submitted by free lancers, or are written by full-time staff. That makes Somerby little different than quite a few of the people he has criticized, since he has been a published journalist.

      Cicero is babbling, as usual.

      Delete
    7. Where is it written that if you didn't complain about a practice at the dawn of time, you cannot complain about it now?

      Delete
    8. @ 3:15

      There is no law against selective outrage. However, there is no statute of limitations on hypocrisy.

      Delete
    9. You are confused. It would be hypocrisy if Somerby were calling Trump "The Donald" after denouncing others who did that. It is not hypocrisy to overlook a wrong early one, discover it later and complain about it later (while never committing that offense oneself).

      I think you use the word "hypocrisy" as a generic pejorative label without thinking about its meaning. Either that or you are very stupid. Or maybe the two are not mutually exclusive.

      Delete
    10. cicero doesn't get paid to think about the meaning of hypocrisy, only to mass-produce wingnut excrement..

      Delete
    11. @ 4:04

      Selective outrage is a long established characteristic of hypocrisy. Perhaps my 3:46 post was too nuanced for a GED Howler.

      B.S. never complained about POTUS Reagan being referred to as The Gipper. He even used the term on his blog as recent as July, 2013.

      "These people are lazy, dishonest, false. Sunday, they faked one for the Gipper, sending Kurtz off in style."

      Perhaps you didn't take your generic meds today.

      Delete
    12. During the '86 campaign, Reagan, saying a vote for a Republican was a vote for him, was known to say "win one for the Gipper" referencing himself.

      Delete
    13. @ 3:14 he has never worked a day as a reporter in his life.

      If he wants to mislead you into thinking he is or was anything other than a writer of opinions, so be it. It is all part of his charming act of flaming hypocrisy.

      Delete
    14. @ 5:50

      Obama prefers the term Obamacare, yet libs are loath to call it anything other than the Affordable care Act. Libs consider the term Obamacare demeaning. That Reagan said to V.P. Bush, "Go out there and win one for the Gipper," at the 1988 GOP convention doesn't change the fact that the media and B.S. rely on that "lazy piddle:" instead of the formal POTUS Reagan.

      BTW: Back in the 1980's, Trump's then wife Ivana coined the phrase "the Donald." Does that fact make the term any less "lazy piddle" for B.S.?

      Delete
    15. No, why would it?

      Delete
    16. @ 7:07

      Then B.S. shouldn't use "lazy piddle" The Gipper in referencing POTUS Reagan.

      Delete
    17. cicero - Lets just turn this around. Where were *you* when the media was calling Ronald Reagan "The Gipper"? Can you point to anything you did? Why aren't you angry with yourself? At least Bob is making the effort to point out a problem with the current (right now, not years ago) media. But to you, it is Bob who is the problem. Grow up.

      Delete
    18. @ 1:07

      B.S. is committing the same sin he says other media are guilty of. B.S. is part of the problem, not the solution. Why is it Ok for him to refer to Reagan as The Gipper but not them?

      Delete
  3. Holy Headline, Howlerman!

    "Hawkeye Hype

    Scott Walker Being Trumped by The Donald in Crucial State of Iowa

    The governor, who has enjoyed a consistent lead all year in Iowa, dropped to third in the most recent CNN poll."

    Et tu, Bloomberg?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-17/scott-walker-being-trumped-by-the-donald-in-crucial-state-of-iowa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And...that doesn't make it right.

      Delete
  4. I don't think Hillary needs lessons from Trump in counter-punching. She's already skilled at blaming embarrassing things on some vast right wing conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      You really ought to read "The Hunting of the President", "Fools for Scandal", and Bugliosi's "No Island of Sanity" to understand what Hillary Clinton was referring to.

      Delete
    2. There are numerous social psychology studies that show that women are blamed or punished, stigmatized, for aggressive behaviors that men are praised for. Hillary Clinton needs to walk a fine line between appearing strong enough to face down international bad guys like Putin but not aggressive in a way that will make her appear freakish or unnatural as a woman. It is part of the reason she has been stressing her grandmother role and attempting to get to know people in smaller venues where her niceness as a person can be appreciated.

      Until you have read Conason's book "Fools for Scandal," you have no right to talk about whether there is a vast right wing conspiracy or not. David Brock was part of that conspiracy and famously blew the whistle on it. There are whole movies about how the Koch brothers use stealth funding and money laundering to influence local elections, such as the ballot initiatives in California. Pretending Clinton is wrong is just ignorant at best, and dishonest in someone who should have been paying attention over the past several decades.

      Delete
    3. "There are numerous social psychology studies that show that women are blamed or punished, stigmatized, for aggressive behaviors that men are praised for."

      Unless of course you are a conservative woman. The right loved them some Maggie Thatcher. A strong powerful progressive woman scares the shit of the right and some on the left as well.

      Delete
    4. She came up running a business suitable for a woman and used housewifery analogies. Here is an interesting analysis of how being female helped and hurt her: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-woman-femininity-john-campbell

      However, many very sexist countries that treat women horribly have had female leaders (India, the Philippines). It doesn't suggest any kind of feminist social revolution. And things don't change because of it, especially under someone like Thatcher. The right loved them some Sarah Palin too. Not because she was strong, competent and certainly not because they thought she would change things. They love women when women stick to the script (Phyllis Schlafley who toted barges for the insurance industry, Ann Coulter and that new person quoted yesterday).

      According to the article, Thatcher too suffered obstacles on her way up, which she addressed by wearing an apron and talking about kitchen economics, and saying what the men in power wanted to hear. Way more "pretty in pink" than Clinton has ever been. I'm glad she learned to use her power, but I wish she had used it for good.

      Delete
    5. Anon and mm -- I well remember Hillary's comment when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Of course, we now know that the accusations were true. And, we also know that Bill had a history of this sort of thing. So, Hillary had reason to believe that the accusations were true.

      Nevertheless, she immediately put out a statement blaming everything on the "Vast right wing conspiracy". I looked it up at the time. Her comment was close to an old comment by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, except that the word "right-wing" replaced his word "left-wing".

      Delete
    6. When you make accusations like this, please quote what Hillary said and exactly what you think Bill Clinton did, what you mean by "this sort of thing".

      Do you not agree that the Paula Jones lawsuit was a put-up job? Do you not understand that Monica Lewinsky's phone was tapped, that she had no desire to testify against Bill Clinton? I'm sure you must have missed the nation-wide discussion about whether a consensual blowjob constitutes having sex with someone (watch the movie Clerks if you are fuzzy about it). Over 50% of the public polled considered blowjobs something you do to avoid having sex, not sex itself. Are you not aware of the long string of women put forth by conservatives as "victims" of Clinton, none of whom were credible after investigation. Under these circumstances, when this shaped up to be just the latest in a series of pseudoscandals, why should Hillary disbelieve Bill and believe right-wing conservative attack dogs? And yes, it was a vast right-wing conspiracy to nail Clinton, to disable the effectiveness of his performance as president (which I consider akin to treason), to find impeachable offenses so that they could remove him. Hillary was right. Linking her name with the slimey Joe McCarthy makes you scum.

      What is wrong with the world when a man cannot enjoy a no-strings blowjob without the world coming unhinged? And David, have you noticed the long string of Republican sex scandals those very accusers of Bill Clinton were faced with during the decades after his terms? From sex with underage boy pages, to sex in public bathroom stalls (wide stance), to Newt divorcing his wife as she was undergoing cancer treatment, to Jessie Helms and his African American daughter. Have conservatives no shame?

      Delete
    7. Do you not agree that the Paula Jones lawsuit was a put-up job? Not agree. Note that the suit was settled in her favor.

      Do you not understand that Monica Lewinsky's phone was tapped

      Not understand. Tapped by whom?

      that she [Monia had no desire to testify against Bill Clinton? Agree, but so what?

      I'm sure you must have missed the nation-wide discussion about whether a consensual blowjob constitutes having sex with someone True, but so what?

      Over 50% of the public polled considered blowjobs something you do to avoid having sex, not sex itself. This is ambiguous. I would regard oral sex as a violation of my marriage vows. I think a majority of Americans would feel the same.

      Are you not aware of the long string of women put forth by conservatives as "victims" of Clinton, none of whom were credible after investigation. Many of these women put themselves forward. From what I read, several of the claims were reasonably plausible. Of course, like other sexual assault accusations, they were all "he said, she said."

      why should Hillary disbelieve Bill and believe right-wing conservative attack dogs? Give me a break. Everybody knew Bill was and is a horn-dog.

      What is wrong with the world when a man cannot enjoy a no-strings blowjob without the world coming unhinged? Please get real. Any corporate or non-profit CEO caught having oral sex in his office during work hours would be summarily fired. And, if the sex partner were a subordinate and if he had engaged in business phone calls while receiving oral sex, he'd be fired all the more quickly.

      And David, have you noticed the long string of Republican sex scandals those very accusers of Bill Clinton were faced with during the decades after his terms? Yes, and I disapprove of those, too.

      Newt divorcing his wife as she was undergoing cancer treatment It's true that the divorce was proceeding during the period while she was undergoing cancer treatment. However, it's a myth that he served divorce papers on her in the hospital.

      Delete
    8. "Note that the suit was settled in her favor."

      That would be directly from the files of Professor Outta Yerass. The case, in federal district court, was dismissed by way of summary judgment against Jones, Judge Wright did the honors.

      Got any other provable lies, hater?

      Delete
    9. Corporate CEOs expect their staff to procure blowjobs and other sexual favors for them. That is one reason I left a marketing job. Sometimes they treat their own staff as the whores instead of the pimps. Nothing ever happens to powerful men who do such things, except Clinton. Wonder why.

      Delete
    10. Only the powerful POTUS Willie paid the price for redecorating a blue dress? What price was that, actually? Losing his law license for five years?

      The federal jury awarded Hanna Bouveng, 25, the payday in her case against her married ex-boss Benjamin Wey, the 43-year-old CEO of the billion-dollar New York Global Group.

      On November 30, 1974, Chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee Wilbur Mills was seemingly drunk, was accompanied by Fanne Foxe's husband onstage at The Pilgrim Theatre in Boston, a burlesque house where Foxe was performing. He held a press conference from Foxe's dressing room. Soon after this second public incident, Mills stepped down from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.

      Delete
    11. Anon 5:51 -- Judge Wright dismissed the case, not for lack of evidence, but because she ruled that Jones could not show damages. However, Jones appealed that ruling. Clinton then settled the suit by paying Jones the full amount of her claim, as I asserted. Wiki says

      On April 2, 1998, before the case could reach trial,[12] Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for dismissal, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages.[12] Jones soon appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[9]

      On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones's claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[9] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.[13]

      Delete
    12. David, that doesn't sound like she won the suit.

      Delete
    13. If $200K is what the losing side gets who wants to win?
      How much could the 40 (+ or -) women get in a law suit against Bill Cosby?

      Delete
    14. 5:51 returning to repeat my last rhetorical question - got any other provable lies, hater?

      Delete
    15. Anon 7:04 - I said the suit was settled in Jones's favor, which is just what happened. She and Clinton settled the suit with him paying her the full amount she had sued for. I didn't use the word "win", but IMHO receiving the entire amount demanded seems to me to be a clear win. If that's not win, what is?

      Delete
    16. David, she realized she wasn't going to win and her attorneys wanted some of their costs back. Clinton didn't want to incur more debt. She got such a small settlement that no attorney would think she won. The attorneys got most of the money. Not a win for her given the investment of time and the damage to her reputation.

      Delete
    17. What reputation?

      Delete
    18. David,

      There is something really wrong with you. You come religiously to a progressive blog where the blogger has spent years showing what a complete bunch of bullshit the Paula Jones/Gennifer Flowers accusations against President Clinton were.

      Yet you come here and post your provocative little statements like,

      "And, we also know that Bill had a history of this sort of thing."

      as though your words will erase what everybody remembers.

      That is the very definition of what a TROLL does. Get a fucking life you creepy little voyeur.

      Delete
    19. Clinton's settlement was based, no doubt, on wanting to settle matters pertaining to the Lewinsky embarrassment. He had painted himself into a corner. That does not mean the Jones nuisance suit was a good case, in fact it was a sleazy misuse of the courts, damn near as sleazy as David in Ca's general ethics. But, at least Paula's Penthouse pictorial (where She changed her story, AGAIN) gave Dave and Cicero something to jerk off over.

      Delete
    20. mm take a look at wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton

      under Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and Other Allegations. You'll find numerous women who charged him with adultery and one who charged him with rape. Some of these women had identified problems with their testimony, but several of them had no such problems identified. Did they all commit perjury? You'll be reminded that, "Clinton later admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers when put under oath during the Lewinsky investigation."

      And, bringing it up to date, "Clinton's name appears more than 10 times on flight manifests for Jeffrey Epstein's private airliner: a Boeing 727. Epstein was convicted in 2008 in Florida for soliciting underage teenage prostitutes."

      Delete
    21. ****
      How shaky a witness was Gennifer Flowers? In January 1992, she told the tale of her 12-year affair in the pages of the tabloid Star. (She was paid $150,000, with much more to come. At the time, her salary as an Arkansas state worker was $17,000.) But uh-oh! One week after her story appeared, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter noted some problems with Flowers’ credibility. Among them: “Flowers claims she met Clinton at the Excelsior Hotel in 1979 or 1980. The hotel didn’t open until late 1982.” Another: “Flowers claims to have been Miss Teen Age America, 1967. She wasn’t—that year, or any other.” In The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons went into more detail about this shaky messenger:

      CONASON/LYONS (page 25): Musicians and club owners who had worked with Flowers described her as manipulative and dishonest. Her resume falsely proclaimed her a graduate of a fashionable Dallas prep school she’d never attended. It also listed a University of Arkansas nursing degree she’d never earned and membership in a sorority that had never heard of her. Her agent told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that contrary to her claims, Flowers had never opened for comedian Rich Little. A brief gig on the Hee Haw television program had come to a bad end, the agent would later confirm, when Flowers simply vanished for a couple of weeks with a man she’d met in a Las Vegas casino—and then concocted a tale about having been kidnapped. She had never been Miss Teenage America. Even her “twin sister Genevieve” turned out to be purely a figment of Flowers’ imagination.
      Not that there’s anything wrong with it! Conason and Lyons also said this: “Flowers never produced a single paragraph, valentine, or birthday card as evidence of her twelve-year affair with Clinton; no witness ever came forward who had seen them together. Indeed, she would eventually write an entire book, Passion and Betrayal, without stating a specific time and place where she and her famous lover were together.” But your “press corps” did what it now does best; they simply pretended not to notice. Indeed, seven years after these problems surfaced, this same Flowers was dragged out on Hardball and Hannity, where repulsive “journalists” stroked their thighs as she rattled insane “murder lists.” The rest of your “press corps” stood by and said nothing (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/26/03). As we’ve long noted, the actual depth of this press corps’ dysfunction is almost impossible to comprehend or convey. But that dysfunction was surely conveyed in the way the corps adopted this witness. OK, she wasn’t Miss Teenage America, but she had great stories, and they pleased empty scribes. So they dragged her around, again and again, to talk about passion, then murder.

      http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101503.shtml
      ******************

      looks like a right wing conspiracy to me

      Delete
    22. mm you ask "how shaky was Flowers" but you use Jonathan Alter to refute her in part. Unfortunately Jonathan Alter is just "one more hack in the guild."

      And what does he refute? Her allegation that she and Clinton has an affair in a hotel that "didn’t open until late 1982.” But according to your other source of refutation, Conanson/Lyons (page 27), that hotel wasn't even built until 1983. Unfortunately their book has no footnotes so you can't check their sources easily.

      Can't anyone get their damn facts straight?

      Delete
    23. Regardless of Flowers's unsavory background, Bill Clinton admitted under oath that he had had sex with her. The only matter in doubt is whether their relationship was a one-night stand, as Clinton admitted, or a longer one, as Flowers claimed.

      Several of the other women listed in wikipedia have no problem with their background. mm, do you believe that they all were committing perjury?

      BTW Clinton's background for honesty was worse than his accusers'. AFAIK none of them were punished after formally admitted to perjury.

      Delete
    24. You're creeping me out with your voyeurism.

      One of the signature issues that TDH has written about and gained fame for writing about was the bullshit stories pushed by the right wing slime machine to destroy President Clinton's presidency. Fucking lying traitors all.

      Yet you come here and pretend you're innocently relating fact. Who was pushing Paula Jones? Fucking dishonest treasonous political enemies that's who. And you sucked it all up, rubbing your thighs as TDH likes to say.

      ***
      For the record, here is the exchange, in Clinton’s deposition, from which this conclusion has been derived:

      QUESTION: Did you ever have sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers?...

      CLINTON: The answer to your question, if the definition is section one there in the first piece of paper you gave me, is yes.

      QUESTION : On how many occasions?

      CLINTON: Once.

      QUESTION: In what year?

      CLINTON: 1977.

      Clinton went on to state, in answer to questions, that he had made no other advances on Flowers, and that she had made an advance on him one other time, which, in the language of the question, “did not culminate in sexual relations.”

      Does this answer prove that Flowers “was telling the truth?” Flowers had claimed a twelve-year affair, and Clinton here asserted one sexual incident! Indeed, if we take Clinton’s statements in this deposition to be true, then Flowers on balance has lied through her teeth.
      ...

      Just think of what this situation means about the truth-loving press corps. If Clinton’s testimony here is true, then Flowers is surely one of the most despicable figures in our recent political history. If Clinton’s statement here is true, Flowers injected herself into a presidential campaign with howlingly false statements about a major candidate, presumably in order to make large sums of money. ...

      It wasn’t long after the deposition was released that Time magazine reported, on its web site, that Clinton had told friends that the incident at issue was a grope-and-grab session in a Little Rock night club--not an act of sexual intercourse, and not an act, by the way, that would contradict his 1992 claim that Flowers was “a woman I didn’t sleep with.” Such Clinton associates as James Carville, Mandy Grunwald, and Dee Dee Myers all explained this distinction on national TV shows, pointing out what was plain on face--that in answering the question in the way that he did, Clinton hadn’t testified to sexual intercourse at all, let alone to a twelve-year affair.
      ***

      Delete
    25. After reading TDH for years, only a dishonest lying rightwing treasonous bastard would question the meaning of "Vast right wing conspiracy".

      ******************
      Several individuals involved in a clandestine anti-Clinton campaign funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife played a previously undisclosed, behind-the-scenes role in bolstering the legal efforts of Paula Corbin Jones during a period when her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton was in danger of foundering.



      On Wednesday, a federal judge threw out all of the charges in the Jones lawsuit, possibly ending a four-year legal and political drama that has entangled the Clinton presidency and riveted the country’s attention.

      The assistance from the Scaife associates came in spring 1994, a crucial juncture in Jones’ legal battle. The statute of limitations on Jones filing a lawsuit was rapidly approaching and she did not have adequate legal counsel to pursue her claim.
      http://www.salon.com/1998/04/02/cov_02news/

      Delete
    26. If Clinton’s testimony here is true, then Flowers is surely one of the most despicable figures in our recent political history.
      I agree.

      Delete
    27. Right, and you were just as despicable when you wrote this yesterday:

      "I don't think Hillary needs lessons from Trump in counter-punching. She's already skilled at blaming embarrassing things on some vast right wing conspiracy."

      You're referring to a former First Lady, a twice elected US Senator and a former Secretary of State, when you make this smug dishonest implication that she was not speaking the truth about the treasonous bastards who hounded her husband during his entire two terms with manufactured bullshit "scandals" backed by right wing billionaires.

      Delete
    28. Where did the $850,000 paid to Paula Jones come from?

      Wasn't this close to the time the Clinton's were broke and in debt?

      Delete
    29. "Where did the $850,000 paid to Paula Jones come from?"

      Perhaps that explains whey they were dead broke. I'm really not interested, I'll leave it to those suffering CDS to find out how that money was paid.

      Delete
  5. MSNBC's infatuation with Trump has been a thing to behold. Last week it was virtually all-Trump all the time.
    Steve Kornacki was like a giddy school girl watching Trump. It was embarrassing to watch. They actually had a split screen showing an empty podium for most of one program - I believe it was Hardball - just to make sure they wouldn't miss a single syllable from this buffoon. Meanwhile entire policy speeches by Hillary Clinton go ignored.

    "(By the way, is some purpose served by continuing to use the belittling “Pretty in Pink” designation?)"

    Yes, it keeps Alter in good stead with his Village friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad. Kornacki seemed like a class act not that long ago. Today Morning Joe used a poll to illustrate Hillary was in trouble. A poll from Fox News!

      Delete
  6. Because the narrative of Hillary Clinton as shifty etc. is so well ingrained, in vain does anyone try to insert facts. All Jonathan Alter has to do is invoke "what we all know."

    The billing records exonerated Hillary Clinton because they showed she had testified truthfully to the grand jury. Therefore, she would have been insane to hide them. A clerk took a long time filing them; understandable, because there were no investigation at the time she was given the assignment. That's why you always hear that Hillary hid the records but never what was in the records when found. Hint: had the records shown that she'd lied to the grand jury, there would have been perjury charges to discuss.

    As for accusations that she looked "dodgy" and "crooked," these are so subjective they can't be argued. All I can say is that I was there and that's not how she seemed to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary worked hard to earn that narrative. Looks like she keeps trying to solidify it.

      Delete
  7. I don't know why Bob isn't assuming Hillary has done nothing wrong. Any fair or intelligent person would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't Candidate Clinton have the same position on pay equity as the Obama/Maddow team. Isn't she talking about segregated schools as if she were writing articles for the Atlantic?

      It is really all about policy positions with Bob Somerby.

      Delete
    2. Maddow has done some good things.

      Delete
  8. "You can call him “Mister Trump” or “Candidate Trump.” You can call him “Johnson” or “Jackson.”

    Bob Somerby, starting a list of unserious, unprofessional journalists who call Trump "The Donald."

    "In the most obvious sense, Donald Trump is Dylann Roof.

    During the Obama years, he stopped being a loud-mouth buffoon and became an ugly demagogue instead.

    ...this ludicrous man ...Trump is so dumb....The man who made those remarks, and so many others, was deranged, disgraceful, sub-human.

    ... the deeply ridiculous figure....the repugnant Trump....Trump has been a noxious figure for way too many years now.

    Donald Trump is a deeply disgraced, repellent figure.

    Donald Trump has been a thoroughly degraded figure for way too many years. His public conduct has been an undisguised disgrace."

    Bob Somerby, In Part 4 of a series attacking Rachel Maddow less than two months ago.

    Somerby went on to call her "Queen of Snark" for an act of "Clowning clown’s cowardly cowardice." She did, however, not call him The Donald. Or at least Mister Blogger Somerby didn't fault her for it then.


    http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/mistakenly-taken-for-smart-dylann-roof.html

    http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/mistakenly-taken-for-smart-rachel_22.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete