Why did Kelly send that email?


How honest should Maddow be: Yecch. Let’s finish last week’s opus with a question:

How honest should Maddow be?

Our question is inspired by the presentation we’re posting below. Like the various groaners we discussed last week, it comes from Rachel Maddow’s program on Thursday, March 27.

The Mastro report had been released that morning. That evening, Maddow devoted most of her program to the Mastro report.

As we showed you last week, she made an array of major “mistakes” that night. In the passage below, Maddow discussed, or pretended to discuss, one part of the Mastro report’s presentation about Fort Lee.

(For our first report on this topic, click here. For our second report, click this.)

As she started this presentation, Maddow cited some new information from the Mastro report. It concerns something Bridget Kelly did the night before she sent her famous email to David Wildstein.

As she started, Maddow discussed what Kelly did that night, then drew a possible conclusion. So far, this all made sense:
MADDOW (3/27/14): We also learned one important new detail about why, at least maybe why, all of this happened in the first place.

You remember the damning e-mail that’s become the most famous thing about this story, right? “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

That e-mail was sent by Bridget Kelly on the very early morning of August 13th.

Well now, according to this new report from the governor’s lawyers, we have brand new information about what, at least contemporaneously, at least on the timeline, what might have caused Bridget Kelly to send that e-mail when she did.

Remember, this e-mail was sent the morning of August 13th. It was sent roughly 7:30 in the morning.

Now we know that, 7:30 in the evening the night before, Bridget Kelly reportedly called a member of Governor Christie’s campaign staff who was in a diner in Jersey City at the time.

She called the staffer and asked, according to the report, about the status of Mayor Mark Sokolich’s potential endorsement—Mayor Sokolich, of course, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey. Bridget Kelly, the night before she sent that e-mail, called a campaign staffer and asked whether Mayor Sokolich of Fort Lee was going to endorse Governor Christie.

The staffer responded that the mayor was not going to endorse Governor Christie. Kelly responded, in sum or substance, that that was all she needed to know. And then, 12 hours later, she sent that e-mail, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

So that kind of makes it seem like, hmm, maybe it was the endorsement issue. Maybe it was that lack of an endorsement from the mayor of Fort Lee that was the impetus for this whole thing. She called to check, to see, whether or not he was endorsing Chris Christie. She heard no.

“All right. That’s all I need to know.” Twelve hours later, she orders, time for some traffic problems in his town. That’s a new detail.
So far, this makes perfect sense.

On August 12, Kelly inquired about the status of Sokolich’s endorsement. She was told that he wasn’t going to endorse.

She sent her famous email to Wildstein the following morning.

To Maddow, “that kind of makes it seem like” maybe it was the endorsement issue which led to the traffic lane closings. And of course, that certainly could be the case.

The problem comes in the passage which follows. In this presentation, Maddow withholds other new information from the Mastro report. On that basis, she rolls her eyes at one of the report’s conclusions—a conclusion she overstates.

How honest should Maddow be when she broadcasts her show? Assuming basic competence, this doesn’t look super honest:
MADDOW (continuing directly): Now, as soon as they give us that detail, rather inexplicably, the new report from Christie’s lawyers—they give us that crucial new piece of information, and then they conclude this. Look:

“The lane closures, the lane realignment, based on all available evidence, does not appear to have been based on Mayor Sokolich’s decision not to endorse the governor.”

Really? Except for the fact that she called to confirm that he wouldn’t endorse right before she said, “Oh, he’s not endorsing? That’s all I need to know. “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

They give us that information and then assure us that the endorsement had nothing to do with it.
For starters, the Mastro report does not “assure us that the endorsement had nothing to do with” the lane closings. Even the passage Maddow quoted doesn’t go that far—and that passage is found in an endnote, not in the body of the report, which leaves the lack of endorsement on the table as the possible motive.

In its strongest statement, the body of the report says “it seems unlikely that political retaliation for Sokolich’s unwillingness to endorse could have been the true objective of the lane realignment” (our emphasis). And yes—despite what Maddow said, the Mastro report gives an explanation for that judgment

In fact, the Mastro report explains its judgment about possible motive in some detail. In the process, it seems to provide a batch of new information.

For whatever reason, Maddow chose to omit the explanation and the new information. She then seemed to say that no explanation was given.

Why does the Mastro report cast doubt on the lack of endorsement as the real motivation? In some detail, the report says that the Christie administration had known as early as March 2013 that Sokolich wouldn’t be endorsing the governor—and that the administration continued to have good relations with the mayor.

Kelly’s email was sent almost five months later, and outreach to the mayors was her major area. On this basis, the Mastro report said it “seemed unlikely” that Sokolich’s failure to endorse was the true motivation for the lane closings, or the real source of the animus Kelly seemed to have toward the mayor.

Why did Kelly send that email? Why did she seem angry with Sokolich? Like Maddow, we have no idea. But in the passage we’ve posted above, Maddow disappeared a bunch of new information from the Mastro report, then acted as if no explanation had been given for its judgment about motivation.

Like so much she said that night, this just wasn’t true.

The Mastro report involves a lot of terrible work. If anything, Maddow’s performance may have been worse.

When you turn on Maddow’s show, how honest do you think she should be? How much are you owed?

Concerning that August 12 phone call: If the endorsement wasn’t the cause of the animus, why did Kelly make that phone call on August 12?

Who knows? Maybe some other offence has occurred, and she was double-checking the endorsement, reasoning that she wouldn’t retaliate against an ally.

The Mastro report says it doesn’t know what the cause of the animus was. Maddow doesn’t know the cause, and we don’t know the cause either.

We do know this—the Mastro report explains its reasoning in some detail, presenting a chunk of apparent new information in the process. Maddow disappeared that apparent new information, then acted like no explanation had been given at all.

As we’ve told you in the past, Maddow just isn’t obsessively honest. We think the public deserves something better from their big TV stars.


  1. And it still could be a legit traffic study done in good faith to answer important traffic questions, only it was bungled.

    Bob still doesn't know.

    1. Bob knows Maddow is not obessively honest because she has consistently withheld the careful steps taken by Wildstein to make it seem like this was a legitimate traffic study. This journalistically proves she is hiding what has not been journalistically disproven.

    2. "Bob still doesn't know"

      But nobody cares for black kids more than he does.

    3. Bob is doing better on tests and you don't even care. You would rather throw all your children off the Eiffel Tower than discuss how well he is doing since he answered "ginned up"
      to the question, "What time is it on the moon?"

  2. "Maybe some other offence has occurred, and she was double-checking the endorsement, reasoning that she wouldn’t retaliate against an ally."

    Sorry, Bob. Mastro went to great lengths to show that Sokolich was treated the same, with or without the endorsement.

    Your fantasy scenario presumes that whatever "offence" (sic) he committed would have been brushed aside had he endorsed.

    1. It has nothing to do with the non-endorsement, but of course Kelly checked first to make sure he hadn't endorsed, because if he had, then she wouldn't have ordered "traffic problems" in his city.

      Perfectly understandable in the World According to Bob, accessibly not by Fort Lee traffic lanes, but only through the looking glass.

    2. She clearly did the checking. Somerby isn't making that up, nor is the report -- it is part of the evidence presented. If you don't like Somerby's suggestion, what do you think explains her actions?

  3. Scott Raab of Esquire says David Wildstein is cooperating with the federal prosecutor Paul Fishman.

    1. Thanks. That's good news, if it's true.

  4. "Who knows? Maybe some other offence has occurred, and she was double-checking the endorsement, reasoning that she wouldn’t retaliate against an ally."

    It is a little known fact that Bob hints at here, but her real name was Don Vito Kelliano.

    RETALIATE Bob?!? She was Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor.

    1. Why would she need to retaliate against any imaginable offense Sokolich committed?

      After all, Christie had no idea who the guy is. Wasn't on the radar. Couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

      Why would his deputy chief of staff be monitoring what Sokolich was up to?

    2. "Why would she need to retaliate against any imaginable offense Sokolich committed?"

      Well, to quote the $$Million dollar report by Christie's lawyer,

      "What motivated this act is not yet clear."

      It appears that Bob considers any negative insinuation about Baroni, or Chip or Christie or most everyone of the other characters involved here is totally outrageous and unprofessional, but Bob here is perfectly free to speculate wildly about the Bridget Kelly. I wonder why that is.

    3. Throughout this controversy, Bob has cast the words of those in power and authority in the best possible light, while casting those with the temerity to question power and authority in not only the worst possible light, but for the worst possible motives.

    4. Do you not consider Maddow someone with power and authority?

    5. A five-nights-a-week cable TV host is someone with power and authority?

      Compared to the governor of New Jersey who once was considered to be a serious candidate for president?

    6. Don't forget she is a multimillionaire who holds people's reputations in her hands.

  5. There are the emails where Kelly says she is very upset because one of the members of her staff was talking directly with Sokolich without letting her know or clearing it with her. If he was cutting her out or going around her in some way that would be upsetting to a supervisor in a new position and it might make her sufficiently angry to take reprisals, such as messing with traffic and then excluding from communication those people who were not including her in the loop. That makes more sense to me than the endorsement scenario and it fits with the comments about her being concerned about how she was regarded by the Governor, and being insecure.

    1. Balderdash. I think Soko was her richochet romance and when it went sour too like the Stepien affair, she got the geek Wildstein, who was eager to please, to make the little Serbian an offer he couldn't refuse.

    2. Let's see, Kelly is sauced that a staffer went behind her back to talk to Sokolich, whom we are told is aces, hunky-dory, and persona mucho grata with the Christie Administration, despite telling them way back in March he wasn't going to endorse.

      So Kelly has three options:

      1. Admonish said staffer in strong language, making it clear that he is not to speak to Sololich.

      2. Fire said staffer.

      3. Order "traffic problems in Fort Lee."

      4. All of the above. We don't know. It has never been disproven on a journalistic basis.

      But we do know she, at the very least, chooses No. 3. Yep, perfectly logical to take your anger at a staffer out on a whole town and its mayor.

    3. "it fits with the comments"

      Should read:

      "It fits with the narrative Mastro was selling . . ."

      Fixed it for you.

    4. A square peg will also fit nicely into a round hole if you have a sledgehammper.

    5. Is a bag of sledgehammpers smarter than a box of rocks?

    6. Except Sokolich is not a Serbian name (as he himself has pointed out). Stepien is.

    7. Proposed theories need to fit the available facts. It was Kelly's staffer who had the good relationship with Sokolich, not Kelly herself. And she is quoted as saying she was very upset that he contacted Sokolich without checking with her first. Search on the word "upset" in the report.

      Trying to make sense of an illogical action isn't going to involve a lot of logic, yet we know she sent that email about the traffic problems. Personally, I think she didn't order the lane closures, but no one wanted to accept that theory either.

    8. First we get a preposterous story about a "traffic study" that they stick to for weeks until it gets blown out of the water.

      Then we get a new preposterous story solely blaming and isolating people very close to Christie who have already been thrown under the bus.

      What's wrong with telling the truth? Christie knows the answer to that very well.

  6. OMB (How Yecchy Should OTB Be?)

    We are pleased to see BOB characterize his recent treatment of Rachel Maddow as an opus. His two part series (beginning with Part 4 and continuing with the Epilogue with the wrong days) needed this PostEpilogue or Epilogue II.

    It allows us to note, before examining the substance of this offering, that we posted five long commentaries to those two posts showing BOB the equal if not better than Maddow in the honesty department.

    As we have observed BOB seeming to say repeatedly, and saying seemlessly repetitively, silence in the face of false information constitutes assent. Silence is what guilded lily livered liberals (or is it pseudo two faced tulip tongued tv hacks? We forget) offer up, which allows false information to spread. Anyway it gets all over the place like margarine.

    So take note. Neither BOB nor any of his friends have refuted a single fact put forth in our copious comments in the Opi of BOB. We take that as affirmation of the truth of all we have offered. In future comments we shall simply refer back to them in terms such as:
    "As we showed you last week," or "Yesterday, we listed some of BOB's errors on last whatever night’s post, the Opus of April 5th or 6th."

    Silence is not golden. It is yellow like butter only the cheap imitation spread.

    Later: Interviews? We don't need to show no stinking interviews!


    1. What did you say?

    2. I personally, can't read your posts. So stupidly written. But I'll go back and try. They better be good moron!!!

    3. They are good moron. They are gooder maman. They are goodest mormon!!!

  7. Bob appears to have been abandoned by his disciples. Where are thou Celia? Deadrat?

    1. What could be hampering them?

    2. Just look for a comment with the word "troll" in it.

    3. Cecelia explained that she was commenting a lot because she was recovering from an injury and had time on her hands. Presumably she is well now. It would be grandiose to think either are missing because of anything someone here said or did.

    4. Also, look for comments with the words, "What Bob really means . . ." in them.

    5. Thanks for asking. I've recently been busy comforting the analysts here after they collectively burst into tears upon reading TDH's absolutely abysmal post "What the heck is an abstract object?" But that's not the real reason. I don't comment much here because I'm bored reading the same errant nonsense comments and making the same obvious points in response.

      Consider the Dunciad of this commentary:

      Anon@3:52P. He waited a whole twenty minutes to claim that TDH still thinks the lane closures were part of a "legit" study. TDH can write that the whole idea was so crazy as to defy rational explanation and that the whole "study" business may well be a hoax or a fraud. Doesn't matter.

      Anon@4:05P. TDH cares about black kids! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Where am I to find time to write comments when I'm too busy laughing at this wit? Ya see, TDH writes about journalists ignoring the progress of black school children. Dontchagetit?

      Anon@3:55P. TDH used an alternative spelling for "offense" Sic 'em!

      mm@5:37P. Still thinks that TDH is defending Christie et al. from "insinuation."

      Anon@5:56. Still thinks that TDH is out to burnish Christie's image and to disparage those who question Christie's authority.

      KZ@5:06. Writing from the Galaxy Schizophrenia still thinks he has a point in his tu quoque crusade and that nobody has Refuted. A. Single. Fact. in his self-described copious commentary. That last is probably true since I'm sure that most people, just like me, can't get through a single paragraph.

      It's clear that this representative sample isn't really about what TDH writes. I've speculated that it's separation anxiety from the cold and distant parent who refuses to acknowledge his children.

      Get over it.

    6. Thank you for this.

    7. the delightful deadrat dissecting our comments incisively?

      hahahahhhahahahaha! more like deadrant.

      what a coldfish this sad deadrat is. we all got over deadrat's boring, self serving, pointless comments a long time ago.

      Get a life.

    8. Wow, deadrat! It has only taken you how long to realize that much of the criticism of Somerby isn't only about the nonsense he writes, and the extremes he goes to pick nits? That it is also about the sheer hypocrisy of a self-proclaimed defender of discourse unable to practice what he preaches?

      But as sharp as you are in detecting the "ad hominem" in others not named Somerby, I am surprised (sarcasm alert) you can't see the primary practictioner on this very blog.

      Let me help you here. Search the blog for the name "Maddow". Go back to the incomparable archives as far as you want.

      Detect a pattern there? Regardless of the issue, Bob's take is remarkably ad hominem, mean in tone and vile in language. And always boils down to how much money Maddow makes.

    9. Anonymous @ 9:32 am

      I went looking for my favorite joke deadrat once told. The one about Ann Coulter's adam's apple. There was a great comment exchange involving deadrat and another lost Daddy loving troll concerning the langauge our cold distant parent used about Maddow in just one post. The parent seeker highlighted these.

      "undisguised clown"
      "extreme histrionics"
      "misbehaving very badly"
      "lost cable soul sells her undeveloped eggs"
      "her pitiful viewers"
      "defiantly stupid"
      "screeched to the skies"
      "morally ill"
      "wierd bouts of dishonesty"

      deadrat, of course dissected each and pointed out good reasons for our "Dad" to have used them.

    10. OMB (We chastise ourselves)

      The comment we made, besides being unsigned, was the work of an anonymous commenter whose quotes of BOB were presented out of context. Perhaps there were good reasons for BOB to have used them. We failed to quote deadrat's response and may have badly paraphrased it.

      In the interest of fairness we present use of such words in context with a citation so readers can check them out.
      We also do it to prove there was a key to the wardroom icebox, we mean "traffic study", all along.

      "Meanwhile, Maddow keeps refusing to report some very basic facts.

      To our physician’s eye, Maddow is morally ill. Her weird bouts of dishonesty have suggested this state of affairs for some time. But last night’s raging on the moors make this point fairly obvious.

      What does Maddow mean when she says Baroni’s testimony “was totally made up?” When she says, “There was no traffic study?”

      We don’t know, but we do know this:

      Traffic data were collected that week. Maddow needs to report that.

      Those traffic data were analyzed. She needs to report that too.

      Preliminary conclusions were reached—conclusions which were quite underwhelming. That too is part of the basic sworn record. Maddow’s viewers have never been told.

      Instead, a morally sick person keeps waving her arms, raising her voice, rolling her eyes and pimping her snark." El BOBbo 1/28/14

    11. At the risk of being sucked back into the blather of the Dunciad, I repeat TDH's complaint about Maddow in this blog entry: Maddow says that the authors of the Mastro report "inexplicably" assure us that "the endorsement [withheld by Sokolich] had nothing to do with" the lane closures. But according to TDH, that's not what the Mastro report does and that's not what the Mastro report says. In the mythical world where commenters criticize the actual blog entry, the discussion would focus on the accuracy of TDH's report and the logic of his conclusions.

      Let's take a look at the actual world of the commentariat:

      Anon@8:48A. My nym is "deadrat," but my comments are "more like deadrant! You see what he did there? He put an "n" in my nym to make a pun. In his own word, hahahahhhahahahaha! Absolutely hysterical. By the way, I'm a "coldfish," sad, boring, self-serving. And, apparently having missed the point, he thinks my comments are pointless.

      Anon@9:32A. Bob is a hypocrite! And he's "mean in tone." And vile. And it's all about Maddow's salary.

      Anon@9:49A. This one claims that in some prior exchange I defended ten nasty things TDH said about Darlin' Rachel. Don't wait to see the date and time of that exchange. It won't be forthcoming.

      KZ@11:23A. KZ says that he might be Anon@9:49, that TDH's quotes are secondhand from another commenter and taken out of context, and that he might have mischaracterized my supposed response. Or something. As usual, I couldn't get past the first paragraph before I lost my concentration along with my interest.

      Now, i don't know how anyone can tell how sad I am from a comment. And I'm not sure what the difference is between being a "coldfish" and a "cold fish," but I'll cop to being boring, which is why I'm not particularly interested in comment threads about me.

    12. deadrat, how could you, a troll of trolls, doubt we are obsessively honest.

      "deadratJanuary 28, 2014 at 8:49 PM

      "undisguised clown"

      "extreme histrionics"
      Histrionic, check. I wouldn't call it extreme

      "misbehaving very badly"
      Misbehaving, check. On the scale where Faux News is a 10, I wouldn't give this one a "very."

      "lost cable soul sells her undeveloped eggs"
      Don't get the metaphor

      "her pitiful viewers"
      "Piteous" would be a better choice. "Pitiful" can have the connotation of deserving contempt.

      Don't get that.

      "defiantly stupid"

      "screeched to the skies"
      Screechy, check. To the skies, no.

      "morally ill"
      That would require intent and thus mind-reading.

      "wierd bouts of dishonesty"
      At least TDH can spell "weird" correctly."

      Now please. tell us the joke about how "Man Coulter" is like an adam's apple in a toll booth. Or a troll is transgendered. We forget jokes. We have to use all our faculties to remember what Chris Matthews said back in 1999 that almost got somebody killed who was on the other side of the continent at the time of his almost killing.



    13. "But according to TDH, that's not what the Mastro report does and that's not what the Mastro report says."

      Here's what the report says,

      . The common speculation that this was an act of political retaliation because Mayor Sokolich failed to endorse the Governor for re-election7 is not established by the evidence that we have seen.

      So, yeah, they're just saying that after their exhaustive million dollar investigation, there's no evidence for that theory. Maddow just pointed out the obvious - that there is evidence to support the connection of the lane closings to the non-endorsement. So what's wrong with that? Why does that merit Bob's screeching criticism?

    14. mm,

      Have you read the relevant sections of the Mastro report? I have. What it says is that there is no dispositive evidence that the lane closures were retaliation for Sokolich's failure to endorse Christie and some evidence to contradict that theory. (Sokolich had a good working relationship with Christie after his endorsement decision, he remained on the Governor's list for honorary appointments, and so on.) The report takes some pains to document the hostility toward Sokolich, including mistaken references to his ethnic background and satisfaction with the trouble experienced by his city's commuters. But the reasons for this animus went undiscovered, mostly because the principals shielded themselves with the 5th Amendment.

      Maddow tells us that the report makes assurances that the endorsement could not have been the reason, but that's not what the report says. Maddow tells us that the report's conclusion isn't explained. But it is.

      There's nothing wrong with reporting that there is evidence for the non-endorsement theory. Because there is. What's wrong is mischaracterizing the report's conclusions and explanations.

    15. deadrant, your comments merely repeat Somerby's posts. you whine when someone else's comment differs from Somerby. you are incapable of discussion. there is no reason for you to comment anymore. that said, it is hilarious making you respond to the many negative comments you receive.

    16. mm asks two reasonable questions: 1) Given that the Mastro report documents evidence for the theory of retaliation for non-endorsement, what's wrong with Maddow pointing that out? 2) Why has TDH penned another tirade about Maddow on this topic?

      Let's take a look at what the TDH Troll Poster Boy, Anonymous@10:09A contributes to the discussion. Anything about the Mastro report? Anything about Maddow's report on that report? Anything about my claims on these two topics?

      Nope. But the following opinions about me: I whine, I can't discuss things, I shouldn't comment further, and people are making me respond to negative comments. This is about as interesting and relevant as the occasional spam promoting web-sites.

    17. "There's nothing wrong with reporting that there is evidence for the non-endorsement theory."

      Which is what Maddow did and which the report clearly did not do, although the evidence was staring them in the face.

      Let's be real here. Maddow's summation was a pretty fair characterization of the report's conclusions. Does the report anywhere indicate that retaliation for lack of endorsement is still an open question? Of course not, why would Christie's own legal council do that? It would constitute malpractice.

      Maddow presented a very fair accounting of the gist of the Mastro report ( and hey, did they remember to mention that he dumped her?)

      It's laughable that anyone is taking this report seriously. It reads exactly as one would expect something written by Christie's legal defense council to read. But Bob keep sifting through that pile of manure with his magnifying glass looking for a nit to pick with Maddow. Anyone who takes this report seriously is either a moron or has a different agenda.

    18. Let's deal with your assessment of the Mastro report first. Your vote? Laughable. My vote? Embarrassingly worthless. TDH (on 4/4/) "In many ways, … low-grade, low-IQ work." Pretty much unanimous among the smart and discerning, eh?

      You ask whether the report indicates that retaliation for lack of endorsement is still an open question, and you answer your own question incorrectly. It does. On page 106:

      That said, there are persuasive reasons to believe that the lane realignment was, in fact,
      motivated to target Mayor Sokolich for some reason. The specific reason or reasons that
      Wildstein and Kelly wanted to target him—whether Sokolich’s unwillingness to endorse or some
      other conduct that they found objectionable—is, however, more difficult to determine.

      But endorsement (or lack thereof) was on Kelly's mind. Wildstein seemed more concerned that the mayor was Serbian. And the whole thing still doesn't make any sense. If the report isn't to be taken seriously, then mock it for its flaws. There's no need to misstate what it says.

      ("Legal counsel" is better.)

    19. your very first comment here deadrat seems to trash other commenters just for being oddly irritating to you. i disagree with comments, but it doesn't seem to create your bizarre need to lash out. it is as if you seem to think every comment is directed at you. the only child that doesn't understand why the world does not consider it to be the center of the universe (speculation, seemingly).

      deadratApril 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM

      "Anything about my claims on these two topics?"

      huh? you seem to continue to merely restate exactly what somerby has posted. your claims? oh please

      deadratApril 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM

      "You ask whether the report indicates that retaliation for lack of endorsement is still an open question, and you answer your own question incorrectly"

      oooo zing, right? answered own question incorrectly, my my. will we survive?

      seems like the quote you provide does not show mm's answer to be incorrect in any meaningful way. mm quotes the report at one point saying the retaliation theory is not established by the evidence. somerby provides even more stuff in the report that casts doubt on the retaliation theory. then, as your big retort, you quote the report saying it would be difficult to determine exactly what the reason was. on the whole the report seems to close the question, but then, somerby-like, does say "idk, maybe, who knows". maddow noticed the report doesn't square why it seems to dismiss the retaliation theory but then also offers new information that Kelly called to ask about endorsement. somerby offers some answers, but the report does not. it is just left there dangling for maddow 's curiosity. for you and somerby, maddow's perhaps slightly awkward phrase in a perhaps honest effort to discuss this seemingly minor point, is the end of the world, aw poor babies. seems like pretty mild stuff to weep and moan about. get some perspective? who knows? maybe. lash out? probably. seems likely. will your future comments continue to make me laugh as if being tickled by a feather? sure

    20. Anonymous @10:15A,

      Allow me to list your objections to my comment in two categories. Category the first:

      I trash other commenters.
      Other commenters irritate me oddly.
      I have a bizarre need to lash out.
      I think every comment is directed at me.
      I'm an only child who thinks he's the center of the universe.
      My comments are attempted zingers that miss their mark.
      I think Maddow's phrasing is the end of the world.
      I'm weeping and groaning.
      I need to get some perspective.
      I'm likely to lash out some more.
      My future comments will make you laugh.

      Category the second:

      My comment is no more that a restatement of TDH.
      My comment fails to show that mm is wrong.

      I apologize if I've mischaracterized any of your response. You do hedge some of your judgments with "seems," and your last steam of consciousness paragraph is unclear to me at points.

      Now, ordinarily I don't suffer fools gladly, but I'm going to make an exception in your case since you seem sincere. And because you so nicely make my point for me. You're not the first commenter to notice how impolite I am. The reason is simple: I'm a thoroughly unpleasant person, and that fact determines my online persona. I don't particularly mind your objections to my tone, and I'm certainly not offended by them. It's just that they don't interest me, and I can't understand why the topic would interest anyone.

      I want to discuss the Mastro report with commenters like mm. With folks like you, who skew your content 11-2 about me, not so much.

      1. I hope that this comment has enabled you to understand me.

      2. Statement 1. is a baldfaced lie.

      3. You have no reliable way to determine the truth of of statement 2.

      Clear now?

    21. giddily giggling. thank you. mm did not do a stellar job discussing the report, also did not make a comment worthy of debate. you did not add to the discussion. as we all know now, you just repeated somerby's post. you had a weak quibble with mm, which i explained. my writing style was contrived for you specifically, as a slight mock, please forgive. i don't want to understand you. i want you to understand you. it is you that skews your content towards you. homer was blind, and you are too. your tone worries me, i m maternal by nature. you actually end discussions by using your comments not to edify but as a way to create your identity. you are obsessed with being identified as the one, the only true one, that can bring clarity. limit yourself to offering smart rebuttals to davidinca. i give you high marks for your categories. best thing you have written.

  8. Poor Bob. Diogenes was searching merely for an "honest" man. Bob has to find man or woman who is "obsessively honest."

  9. Malala; King's Ghost; Mandela's GhostApril 8, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    These sound a lot like us. They reflect our tone and manner almost perfectly:

    "undisguised clown"
    "extreme histrionics"
    "misbehaving very badly"
    "lost cable soul sells her undeveloped eggs"
    "her pitiful viewers"
    "defiantly stupid"
    "screeched to the skies"
    "morally ill"
    "wierd bouts of dishonesty"

    1. It is sad a visit to New Jersey causes one to pick up such rude habits. Please be advised to stay away. The also have terrible traffic, which they study in good faith.

  10. Why Did Kelly Send that e-mail?

    Here's a new theory for ya Bob. She sent it so Wildstein would know the Governor's Office was giving his bungle on the bridge the "two thumbs up."