BREAKING: Unnamed star attains greatest success!


Why the Times goes unchallenged:
On April 24, 2015, before Donald J. Trump even entered the race, the New York Times issued its latest peculiar attack on Candidate Hillary Clinton.

The report began on the Times' front page, then consumed two full pages inside the paper. The scary report ran more than 4400 words. It discussed a scary uranium deal—a scary deal it seemed to blame on Hillary Clinton.

The strange report had resulted from an extremely strange business partnership between the Times and Peter Schweizer, a rather unreliable conservative propaganda maven. The extremely strange business deal led to a very strange "news report" which ate 4400 words.

By now, many liberals have heard that the Times' disgraceful "news report" was just extremely strange and bogus. That said, almost none of our liberal heroes said so at the time.

On MSNBC, one gigantic cable star said absolutely nothing at all about the very strange and highly bogus New York Times report. Last Thursday night, this same cable star may have helped us understand why this general pattern has obtained over the past thirty years.

In this general pattern, the Times engages in weird attacks on major figures like President Clinton, Candidate Gore and Candidate Hillary Clinton. In response, the career liberal world averts its gaze—sees and says nothing at all. Our favorite "career liberal" stars pretend the attacks haven't occurred. In this way, they keep us barefoot and clueless.

Last Thursday night, the unnamed star of whom we speak teased her program's closing segment. More precisely, she teased it in this manner, just before going to break:
MADDOW (3/1/18): All right. One last very important thing to get to tonight, slightly embarrassing on my part, but we're going to do it.

That's next. Stay with us.
The cable star had one last thing shehad to do; it would be "slightly embarrassing." Given the way she performed the tease, we thought she might be about to perform one of her phony and faux DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS reports.

In fact, that wasn't it. When the massive star returned from break, she began performing hard. You can watch the inanity here. Here's how her segment began:


It's a little weird. I have to take a point of personal privilege here. Ummm—


This is embarrassing. It's embarrassing, but I can't not do it!

One last thing to let you know about, and I'm going to hand you off to the good graces of Lawrence O'Donnell. I want you to forgive me for doing this on the show, but I am bursting with pride and I have to say something.
Say what? In fact, the massive star was "bursting with pride" about the matter she planned to discuss.

Indeed, in the roughly three minutes which followed, she said "I," "me" or "my" some 45 different times, according to one actual count.

("I I I I I I I." the analysts were already wailing.)

Why was this major unnamed star bursting with pride this night? Taking a point of personal privilege, she began to engage in her favorite pastime, talking about herself:
MADDOW (continuing directly): Tomorrow—or maybe even late tonight, you should check now—the New York Times is going to publish something by me.

I've never had a thing published in the New York Times before. I sometimes do columns in the Washington Post. I haven't done one in a long time, but I never had a thing in the New York Times before.

And this thing I just did for the New York Times, it almost killed me putting it together.
But I finally got it done, it is about to come out. I was going to say I hope you like it, but honestly, I'm so excited about it, I don't care.


Even if everybody hates it, I am still so excited.
Advising us to check right now, the major star said the New York Times was going to publish something she'd done. The task had almost killed her, she said, but she got it done!

It almost sounded like the star had written an oped column. In fact, the achievement was greater than that. As you can see if you watch the tape, she banged a drum roll on her desk while sycophantic aides played a fanfare for her.

After the fanfare, she copped:
MADDOW (continuing directly): So drum roll, please:


Tomorrow, it is, it will be—


My first-ever New York Times crossword!

By which I do not mean that I am a clue in The New York Times crossword tomorrow, although that is a huge enough deal. I mean, I actually did, I made, a New York Times crossword, I made one, with a genius guy named Joe DiPietro, who is so freaking smart about this stuff, and who was so nails with me about how terrible I was at the start of the process, that I'm scarred for life. But he was amazing.
The monster bullshit proceeds along from there. When Lawrence comes on for his pretend-to-be-friendly nightly chat with the unnamed star, it almost seemed to us that he came close to openly mocking the cable star for the repetitive self-adoration to which she'd surrendered again:
LAWRENCE: Good evening, Rachel, and the word "congratulations" doesn't sound big enough. It's just—for this moment, this is just extraordinary. This is history-making. I couldn't be more thrilled for you.

MADDOW: Thank you very much. I actually—you know, I'm a childless, middle-aged, pot-bellied lesbian and I don`t have much to be excited about in my life other than having a great job. This is kind of it, like there will never be a baby, but there's this freaking crossword puzzle. And I am very, very excited about it.

O`DONNELL: I am—I'm so glad to know that you have all the time in the world to do something like that, a little extracurricular.

MADDOW: It's really all I want. It's the only thing I wanted and I got it. I'm very happy.
As he spoke with the "childless, pot-bellied lesbian," we thought Lawrence might be coming close to dropping the mask he dons each night.

The inanity here is plain to see. In fact, this performance wasn't "embarrassing." In even a slightly more rational world, it would be seen as "disqualifying," as a moral disgrace.

We're amazed to think that liberal viewers are apparently charmed by this. But our point today is different.

Repeatedly, we've told you about the role played by the New York Times in the careers, and the social lives, of these cultural criminals.

Why didn't Michelle Goldberg savage the Times on the Chris Hayes show when the Times ran that open con about the scary uranium deal? We don't know, but she ended up landing a job as a regular New York Times columnist. That giant score could never have happened had she opened her mouth that night, breaking the code of silence.

Why did Jonathan Chait write that utterly ludicrous, whitewashed account of the New York Times' role in the history-changing War Against Candidate Gore? We don't know, but he has occasionally had op-ed columns published by the career-making paper.

Why would an unnamed cable star jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she'd dream of challenging the work of the New York Times? We don't know, but we strongly suggest you click this link to watch her mugging and clowning last Thursday, teaching us to adore her more fully and kissing the *ss of the Times.

These are terrible people. Children are dead all over the world because they're so deeply committed to the three words they love to say on TV:

I, me and my.

Don't fail to watch that embarrassing three-minute tape.
We hope you cringe when you consider the things wealth and fame can lead us prehumans to do.


  1. I sh*t you not. I was watching when Maddow talked about her crossword puzzle. You know what I thought? That's pretty cool...I like crossword puzzles, they're hard to create, and it would be kind of neat to get one published. And I thought, isn't it cool that Maddow is being self-deprecating, and giving a brief personal anecdote. You know, an anecdote about oneself where most of us use the word "I" to refer to ourselves? Well, except Bob Somerby, who instead uses the term "we." My super computer was unable to finish counting the number of "we's" in The Daily Howler history, let alone the "us'es" and "our's". I was, however, unable to find an instance of self-deprecating humor in Howler history.

    Am I defending Maddow? No. But this Howler post is just another substanceless attack on a favorite bogeyman.

    1. She didn't create it. They just used her name. What it is is a cross promotional marketing product to promote each other's brands. It's an ad. It's for masturbating sheep like you to think it's pretty cool and "neat". You reaction just proves you're a sucker.

  2. I don't know why Bob keeps defending the behavior of the Clinton Foundation with such vigor. Foreign countries and foreign businesses made enormous contributions to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and when she was highly likely to become President. I can't prove directly that there was a quid pro quo for each of these donations. But, we can see that the enormous foreign donations pretty much ended when Trump won the election. This certainly has the appearance of corruption.

    1. I haven't seen the numbers but I suspect you're right about the contributions drying up. As you say, there are some obvious conclusions to be drawn from that.

    2. I went back to look at The Howler discussion of this (particularly THE PSEUDOJOURNALISM RULES: Right on time in paragraph 5!
      TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015 ( and found it somewhat unconvincing. It's not really a detailed rebuttal of the story. It's long on characterization ("pseudojournalism") and short on a more focused critique of the factual assertions made in the article.

      I didn't review the discussion of the story on MSNBC, so maybe Bob has a point there.

    3. " I can't prove directly that there was a quid pro quo for each of these donations."

      Really? Even after all the GOP-led investigations turned-up no corruption? Are you a RINO, then?

    4. Because of the attacks on it, the Clinton Foundation was shut down, disbanded and repurposed to focus more narrowly. One reason is that the Clintons themselves both were no longer associated with it and Chelsea was busy with other things, such as having a family. There is no point in making a group of hardworking employees a political target for no good reason. If there is not the Clinton fundraising energy, it makes more sense for the staff to work through other organizations.

      The Clinton Foundation has been massively audited and has always come out clean. It has been investigated from here to Friday. There is no evidence either Clinton ever benefited financially from their association with it. Nor is there any evidence of any kind of quid pro quo given to any government or individual by Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State to any donor of the Foundation. Bill Clinton was entirely out of office before the Foundation began. There was no opportunity for the Clintons to do favors for anyone after they both left office.

      So this ongoing conservative attack on the Foundation makes no sense. Nor do any of your remarks about it, David.

      This was a global organization that did a great deal of good for a lot of people worldwide. It was a charity, for God's sake and it did charitable work. No one has found any evidence it has ever done anything else. It is sad that it has so severely curtailed its efforts, but it is understandable that it has happened under the circumstances.

    5. That the crucial work of addressing desperate need should, or has to be performed by charities financed by the über rich and not by governments or by broad based community action is another idea neo-liberalism promotes in order to sell its updated version of an aristocracy based economics as the "there is no alternative" natural order of human organization.

    6. Shorter CMike: I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but I never miss a chance to slander a Clinton.

    7. @3:03 AM
      I share the sentiment, except that 'governments' in your comment are also controlled by by the uber rich; they're part of that same neo-liberal system for which, we're told, there is no alternative.

      If you want a real alternative, technocratic-government liberalism is not your friend.

    8. mm,

      You've been convinced the monied elite are your superiors- there's been a lot of that going around for centuries.

    9. Mao maybe people won't ever get it but maybe if they could, at least, hear the argument stated a few dozen times LINK.

  3. 'We hope you cringe when you consider the things wealth and fame can lead us prehumans to do.'

    What I see is how the absence of wealth and fame can lead 'us' (ie, you) to go crazy.

  4. Your hate for Maddow is about as nuts as Trump and his crowd size fantasy. Bob, find a hobby or anything to get your mind off of her. This is very unhealthy.

    1. Agreed. his writing is much better, usually, when he isn't talking about her. It's like a car wreck he just can’t stop watching. But being a true non-fan of Maddow, I was breathless - breathless I say! – to hear what the hell she was talking about. Alas, I was disappointed. I thought she was trying to sell papers. Who knows? Maybe she succeeded.

      Thank goodness it wasn’t an opinion piece. Can you imagine what Bob’s readers would have to go through?

      Anyways, the post reminded me of this:


  5. "Children are dead all over the world because they're so deeply committed to the three words they love to say on TV: I, me and my."

    Nonsense, Bob. All these clowns that fascinate you are mere cogs in the machine.

    The clowns and the dead children are all consequences of something else; symptoms from root causes you never address.

    1. Modern Conservativism.