Supplemental: It just keeps coming at the Post!


Who the heck is Alexander Becker: It just keeps coming from the Washington Post.

Granted, the piece in question only appears at the paper’s “Post Politics” blog. It hasn’t appeared in the hard-copy paper.

Nor do we have any idea who Alexander Becker, the author of the piece, is. He seems to be new to journalism, and to the Post, in the past few months.

In fact, he seems to be new to the world, based upon Google and Nexis searches. Unless he’s the guy from Siena.

That said, Becker’s piece is being pimped on the front page of the Post’s site. It’s the latest attempt by the jihadist paper to figure out how much money Hillary Clinton has.

We’ll also say this—whoever Alexander Becker is, he does know how to parrot a guild or company line.

Headline included, this is the way he begins his piece.
Do you catch the drift of his instant explanatory framework?
BECKER (7/30/14): $5 million, $50 million or even more—just how rich is Hillary Clinton? Here’s why we don’t know.

Ever since Hillary Clinton drew attention to her finances by claiming her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House, speculation has focused on a seemingly simple question: Exactly how rich are the Clintons?

The answer, at least for the time being, is that there's no way for the public to know.
These kids today are good!

Why is Becker exploring the question of Clinton’s wealth? The gentleman pre-explains his motive as he opens his piece.

According to Becker, Hillary Clinton “drew attention to her finances” when she uttered the words “dead broke!” Why is the Post on its jihadi quest?

Easy! As Mayor Barry might have said, bitch pretty much set them up!

This same narrative was lurking in last week’s pseudo-discussions on Morning Joe. Tomorrow, we’ll show you how Julie Pace worked this framework into her discussion of the millionaire press corps’ wonderful work concerning Clinton’s wealth.

For today, we’ll only note the startling obsession which consumes the spear-chuckers at the Post. And we’ll help you think about why that question of motive is so central.

Why is Becker, and everyone else at the Post, obsessed with the question of Clinton’s wealth? We ask because there’s really no precedent for this type of pre-emptive coverage.

At some point in every White House campaign, the personal wealth of the various candidates does in fact get reported. In some cases, personal wealth may even get over-reported.

That said, no campaign is currently under way. Hillary Clinton isn’t a candidate. Neither is anyone else.

We know of no journalistic precedent for this relentless pre-sliming of a major non-candidate. The Washington Post is off on a quest which has no apparent precedent and no apparent innocent explanation.

We don’t know who Journalist Becker is. His piece hasn’t appeared in the hard-copy Post. That said, his famous paper is pimping the piece on the front page of its web site.

This is a deeply peculiar state of affairs. But as in March 1999, so too today—the career liberal world will tool along, pretending this isn’t occurring.

Journalistic careers move through the Post. This fact helps create a major code of silence.

Rachel Maddow won’t question this highly peculiar jihad. At Salon, a string of the site’s famous “blasphemy rampages” will drown this topic out.

A very strange movement is underway. Your various watchdogs, teeth in jars, are barking about John Boehner.


  1. Not very good at this Googling thing are you Bob?

  2. "That said, no campaign is currently under way. Hillary Clinton isn’t a candidate. Neither is anyone else. "

    And Rand Paul is merely vacationing in Iowa, soaking up the sunshine on all their famous resorts on all their famous beaches.

    1. Have they been investigating Rand Paul's astounding personal wealth?

    2. Nope, but Rand Paul didn't offer that he was "dead broke and in debt."

      Rachel Maddow, however, did quite a number on him for his continued plagiarism and his continued disagreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      And she added a piece about how indignant and huffy he gets when questioned about those things.

      Sound familiar?

    3. According to Clinton tax records, Hillary Clinton's statement was true. How is making a true statement now a faux pas justifying this press jihad (or piling on, to continue the sports metaphor)?

    4. Wrap your brain around this. A statement can be true, but still be an incredibly dumb thing to say at the same time.

    5. I just don't see it as incredibly dumb. It is possible for the media to characterize it that way and blow it up into a big deal, but that doesn't make it dumb either. The criticism of her remark, which was true, is much dumber than the remark itself. There has been so much dumb coverage but no one wants to call it out for being dumb. Instead they expect that Hillary Clinton attract no negative press, because if she does that means she is not in control of her image. That is ridiculous. The silliness of this pseudoscandal shows that they have nothing real to charge her with. If they did, they'd be all over that instead of this manufactured outrage over an innocuous true remark.

    6. I agree with 4:47. It isn't as if she said "During our service in the White House I took the initiative to create a negative net worth."

  3. Becker? Gack! He's only a kid.

    A mature person would have waited until their fifties before thinking about being a blog publisher and contemplating topics like new urbanism. When you are that young you want to hang around with future movie stars and presidents and stuff.

    1. What a nice, thoughtful young man.

  4. baldspotwithakeyboardJuly 31, 2014 at 3:02 PM

    Numerous posts on WaPo's moneygrubbing jihad against HC and not one mention of the pundit leading the charge, the blogger's BFF Chris Cilliza.

    Boy do I miss MWO.

    1. Media Matters is on it:

      Have you not noticed that this blog tends to cover things that are not being said by liberal journalists? Somerby does not duplicate the effort of Media Matters. He has been complaining that our OTHER liberal journalists have been silent about the attacks on Clinton. It is fair to expect that Maddow, Hayes, and the whole cast of liberal pundits should be defending our putative frontrunner from this preemptive attack, not keeping quiet because they want to write more post columns themselves.

    2. Yes, it is fair to expect MSNBC hosts to rush to the defense of the people you perceive to be "liberals" much like Fox hosts rush to the defense of the people you perceive to be "conservatives."

      And that gives Somerby yet another opportunity to write how "MSNBC is just like Fox."

    3. Will give you credit for this, though.

      Media Matters does tend to cover what people actually say.

      Somerby on the other hand tends to cover what people don't say, and what he wishes they did say.

    4. That is terribly unfair Anonymous @ 3:53. He also covers what they seem to say, imply, and also sometimes just as important, what they suggested when they seemed to say something.

    5. If liberals do not get behind a putative presidential candidate at some point, they will lose the 2016 election. Whether that candidate is Clinton or not is less important than that liberal pundits seem to take orders from someone outside the party structure -- someone within the corporate plutocracy. This caused us to lose elections to Bush and it can and will happen again if people decide this is just about Hillary and not about a larger question of who should decide elections -- voters or the media (manipulated by those who employ them).

    6. Voters don't decide jack @ 4:29. This is about whether Bill Clinton gets to pick the next President or the press.
      So far Bill is 2-0 and a candidate but 0-2 when running his surrogate.

      But I share your concern that the pundits are taking their orders outside the party structure. They must be purged.
      Obviously they have gotten fat like a bunch of kulaks.

  5. Bob, if you look carefully you may find taped evidence this new kid is one of those white ones upping DC test scores and is clearly an Obot.

  6. When you use Google, the first step is typing in the name and getting a bunch of listings. The second step is making sure the listings are about the person you are researching. Have you done that? If yes, please post a coherent bio. Other readers here would like to know what you know. If you are just posting random links about someone named Alex Becker but don't know whether he is the same guy who wrote this particular article, you are spamming and need to stop.

    1. Yes, because people who aren't nearly as perceptive and intelligent as 3:09 won't be able to figure all that out for themselves.

      What a burden it must be to be sooo much smarter.

    2. @ 3:09 is probably KZ and needs to go away.

    3. Anonymous @ 3:09. Here is a definitive statement and a hint.

      All of the above links are to the work of and or are about the same Alexander Becker who wrote the blog piece in this post whom Bob was unable to locate. Except the White House link. But he was there at the linked event. We can link you to proof of that if you are extremely curious.

      The young man is everywhere. Now he is at Dartmouth. Working on being turned into a privileged little shit, Zombie, or whatever it is Bob says happens behind those Ivy walls.

      Hint: We find he has nothing to do with Siena.

    4. I don't think the links make Somerby look like an idiot. They just make it look like readers should have doubts when he says he conducted a Nexis or Google search on a topic and found nothing.

    5. I googled KZ. That's how I found out it means Konzentrationslager (concentration camp).

    6. Thanks, ZKoD. You've done the right thing, and you've set a fine example for the Washington Redskins.

    7. We are sorry to hear that. We do not want to show signs of weakness or lack of resolve.

      FKA KZ

    8. KZ talking to himself pretends he is still wecome here. Go away. Go far away. Go now.

    9. I just tried googling Alex Becker and got a bunch of sites about an Alex Becker who is scamming people over some kind of software product. There is also an Alex Becker who is a designer and one who is a photographer. It is very hard finding any cites for a reporter and those that appear are so diverse that it is hard to consider them all the same person: sports reporting in PA, film reporting in Hollywood, a bunch of perhaps freelance assignments at various places. There is no coherent source of a bio or information about him. Even at the Washington Post, he is just listed as Reporter and some of his more recent articles are listed, including one with Rucker attacking Clinton. So who is he? A troll earlier claimed to know but then didn't tell us anything. Given how difficult it is to put together a picture from Google (and I assume Nexis, though I don't subscribe to that), I think it is fair for Somerby to pose this question at the beginning of his post and the ridiculing of it is specious.

    10. Yes, but it seems in your meticulous search, you found the Alex Becker who writes for The Post as well as "some of his more recent articles."

      This is something that Bob apparently was unable to do.

      So you are still asking, "Will the real Alex Becker please stand up?"

    11. "A troll claimed to know"

      Boy, if there were ever better evidence of Somerby's claim that people are dumb than this post and your defense of it, I'd like to see it.

      Googling "Alex Becker Washinton Post"

      1) The article with Rucker. Somerby did a whole post on this article but never mentioned the co-authors, just "new kid" Rucker.

      2) A link showing him at Huff Po as an intern.

      3) A link to this TDH post

      4) A link to the post mentioned in the first comment by "just a troll" about him winning a contest while an intern at Huff Po and mentioning he was a DC local boy headed to Dartmouth.

      5) A link to a Washinton Post site about an Alexander (Alex) Becker who works for Boehner

      6....... Links to articles in WaPo about other people with the same name

      So lets go back to the top.

      At the first WaPo link are other things he has written there online. "Just a troll" links one in the second post.

      You see at the first WaPo link Mr. Becker is on Twitter, Going to his feed discover it links to his previous twitter feed at Huff Po.

      Following him to HuffPo you get the article linked in "Just a troll's" third comment. There you discover his byline lists him as "Founder/Publisher," That blog is no longer on line but if you google using it you discover a number of things he wrote there reprinted elsewhere, including the link provided by "just a troll" in comment 4.

      Based on the space of time between comments it took "just a troll" fifteen minutes to show Blogger Bob is not very good at Googling. I won't reveal how "just a troll" discovered him at the White House in his fifth comment.

      Based on the time it must have taken for you to Google then write your idiotic comment I'd guess you may be both

      1) slow


      2) Proof that dumb people, even when confronted with basic truths, hold tribal faith in the words of their chosen shaman. Yours is Shaman Somerby.

      In closing your are right and wrong. It is "fair" (your term) for
      Somerby toi display his faults. It was not specious to ridicule him for it because he constantly tells readers what is or is not covered based on his personal online searches.

      Have a nice day.

    12. If you leave out Wash Post the search is messier. Why would you limit it if you wanted broader background about someone you already knew worked there?

    13. Anon. @ 7:46

      Did you teach Bob how to Google, or vice versa?

  7. Watching Morning Joe on MSNBC now. Discussing Hillary. It's now "CLINTON INC." at the bottom of the screen. The "Clinton Empire" is being compared to a mafia family. Mika is very concerned

    1. The comments are full of Benghazi complaints.

      The term "catch a break" implies that there is some element of luck involved. There isn't. These are choices being made by people in the media about what and how to cover a story. "Catch a break" has nothing to do with this.

    2. Yes of course, this is all obviously Hillary's fault for not being able to control mark Halperin and that snickering overgrown high school jock, Joe Scarborough. Just normal everyday political punditry.

    3. But Bob knows how to talk to people with different points of view, something ordinary tribal liberals lack. Just having his words over there at a conservative website is bound to bring some new readers over here.

    4. See anon @10:20 below.

  8. None of this compares to Bill Clinton's "I could have gotten Bin Laden" tape on 9/11. People were laughing just like Hillary when she joked about getting her rapist client off with a slap on the wrist.

    And of course the defense of the Clintonistas, just like with the "Creating the Internet" "Love Story" "Dead Broke" lines will be:

    A: This is all the media's fault, but
    B: It's mostly (at leat partly) true

    Unless, of course, it gets covered up. Which would be par for the Lamestream Media course.

    1. Don't you have a nice conservative website to visit?

    2. Well I got the news from Bill Clinton's former aide who is at ABC. What part of "It's Good Morning in America" did you not understand when Reagan became the most transformational President since FDR.

    3. It is nice that you have opinions but perhaps you would be happier expressing them where other people might agree with you? Otherwise, the use of terms like Clintonista and your reference to Fox memes (Hillary laughed at rape) will make people think you are just another ugly troll.

    4. "Don't you have a nice conservative website to visit?"

      Yes, a site that daily howls at the "liberal press" and calls them clowns who stuff millions into their pants while the cream themselves as they commit acts of self-abuse.

      Why can't he find a site like that to infest?

    5. He needs some of Somerby's older friends to play with him.
      How can we get them to come out of hiding? I know!

      Trayvon Martin was just a boy murdered by a wanna-be-cop with a gun!

      Beats ringing the dinner bell.