EVER SO SLOWLY WE TURN: Rachel thinks Candidate Christie’s too fat!


Part 2—The Times does one hopeful a favor:
Last Saturday, the New York Times performed its latest favor for the Republican party.

The favor took the form of the Times’ latest inane, less-than-obsessively-honest “news report.” This report concerned the driving record of a leading Republican hopeful.

The candidate in question is Marco Rubio. His troubling record behind the wheel had the Times upset.

Concerning the Times, you must know this—workers at the famous newspaper often seem a bit Coneheaded, something other than human. Their sheer inanity seems to know no limit or bound. Beyond that, they’re often less than obsessively honest when they pursue the disturbing stories which have them deeply concerned.

So it was when the New York Times gave the GOP this latest familiar gift.

For the record, we aren’t entirely sure if the “news report” in question appeared in Saturday’s hard-copy Times. Even today, the silly newspaper’s “Today’s Paper” site records the publication of no such report. By way of contrast, Nexis says the report appeared on page A12, at least in the “Late Edition.”

Either way, the silly report was a gift to the GOP. In classic Times fashion, it took two reporters and a researcher to compile this embarrassing, slippery mess.

This is the way it started:

RAPPEPORT AND EDER (6/6/15): Plenty of Notice for Rubios on the Road

Senator Marco Rubio has been in a hurry to get to the top, rising from state legislator to United States senator in the span of a decade and now running for president at age 44.

But politics is not the only area where Mr. Rubio, a Republican from Florida, has an affinity for the fast track. He and his wife, Jeanette, have also shown a tendency to be in a rush on the road.

According to a search of the court dockets in Miami-Dade and Duval Counties in Florida, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.

Mr. Rubio's troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics...
The piddle proceeds from there. “Kitty Bennett contributed reporting,” the Times also says, apparently without embarrassment.

Has Candidate Rubio “shown a tendency to be in a rush on the road?” We’d have to say he hasn’t. For all their brilliance, the three reporters turned up exactly four tickets for the candidate in a period covering at least the last eighteen years.

“Mr. Rubio's troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics?” Sadly, that’s the problem with this Times report! The first traffic ticket the Times discovered was issued in 1997, when Rubio was 27 years old. As best one can tell from this silly report, the candidate has been ticketed exactly four times in his entire life!

Making matters even worse, two of the charges were dismissed, according to the three reporters. In classic fashion, the reporters don’t explain why.

There you have it! A leading Republican candidate has received four tickets in his life, two of which were dismissed. Even for the extraterrestrials who seem to prosper at the Times, it’s hard to tease a “news repot” out of such slender gruel.

How did the newspaper handle this problem? Of course! Mrs. Rubio does seem to have a rather sketchy driving record. The solution was obvious:

You add her traffic citations to his! This lets you report a grand total of seventeen traffic tickets!

Has any newspaper even done “reporting” of this type? Has even newspaper, even the Times, ever been this dumb and this slippery?

Has any newspaper ever done his-and-her joint ticket reporting? In which a hopeful gets slimed, in this slippery way, for the tickets acquired by his wife?

At the Washington Post, Eric Wemple was apparently struck by the strangeness of this report when it appeared on line. Pitifully, the New York Times Washington bureau chief explained her newspaper’s rush to publish:
WEMPLE (6/5/15): The New York Times denies playing a passive role. “We came across this on our own,” says New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan in an e-mail to the Erik Wemple Blog. “Steve Eder and Kitty Bennett noticed it on Tuesday while looking into something else—it is almost all on line.” There was a plan to keep the piece waiting until next week, notes Ryan, but Rappeport found out that the story had other suitors, so the paper expedited it. “We hired a document retrieval service in Florida and got copies of the paper records ourselves. They came back yesterday.”
Others were going to break this “news.” So the Times rushed into print! That said, who but the Times would treat it this way—adding thirteen tickets to the candidate’s four, producing an eye-popping total!

This is slippery, brain-dead work; the Times excels in both areas. That said, what makes this “news report” a gift to the GOP?

Surely, you don’t have to ask.

The conservative world has complained for decades about the Times’ famed “liberal bias.” American voters of all persuasion have heard this familiar claim again and again and again and again over the 18-28 years during which Candidate Rubio was failing to tear up the roads.

During that period, the Times has conducted a series of wars against both Clintons and against Candidate Gore. One of those wars sent George Bush to the White House. But for reasons of career and social standing, leading “liberals” in the media have always refused to discuss this.

Ever so slowly, the liberal world has started to turn on this point. It’s now OK to say that the press corps hates Candidate Clinton, a point we’ll examine further as the week proceeds. But the liberal world is still reluctant to name the names of the actual orgs which are hunting this candidate down.

Regarding the names of actual journalists? Yesterday, Salon’s Joan Walsh went out of her way to say that she admires the Times’ Maggie Haberman, even as she criticized Haberman’s latest front-page report, which advanced “the New York Times asinine new Clinton meme.”

For all we know, Haberman may be the world’s nicest person, As a journalist, she’s an utterly useless, second-generation typist by way of Politico. For social and professional reasons, people like Walsh still aren’t eager to tell you that.

No such scruples restrain the conservative world. As soon as the Rubio piece appeared, conservatives began to explain that the New York Times had done it again—had put its famous old “liberal bias” on display!

At USA Today, a Glenn Reynolds column appeared yesterday. “Rubio's four traffic tickets aren't news, unless you're publishing political hit pieces,” the sub-headline said.

Excerpts like these will be bruited far and wide:
REYNOLDS (6/8/15): Rappeport, Eder and Bennett's earth-shattering traffic scoop produced rather a lot of mockery from people on the right, and from some on the left. Longtime political correspondent Jeff Greenfield tweeted: "Rubio TrafficTicketGate? This a parody of political journalism gone nuts, right?"

Yeah, pretty much.
To add to the embarrassment, the Times, though it has since silently corrected the piece, referred to Marco Rubio's Ford F-150 pickup as a "sports utility vehicle," displaying the level of automotive literacy expected of Manhattan residents.


Even most of the major newspapers and networks declined to treat the Times' story seriously. Fox News emphasized the hit-piece style of the story, and The Wall Street Journal mocked it; CNN was mum; and The Washington Post's Erik Wemple warned the Times it is setting itself up for criticism if it doesn't hold other presidential candidates to the same level of scrutiny. Of the major networks, only MSNBC gave the story the time of day.


[I]f Times journalists wonder why so many people think they bend over backward for gotcha stories involving politicians they disfavor, well, perhaps they should ponder this example. Everybody else is.
As best we can tell, this column hasn’t appeared in the hard-copy USA Today. But its message will be widely voiced:

There they go again! The Times has published another gotcha story about a Republican hopeful!

Is the New York Times “setting itself up for criticism if it doesn't hold other presidential candidates to the same level of scrutiny?” Plainly, yes—it is.

That said, the Times has been publishing strange attacks on the leading Democratic candidate during this same time frame. The difference is, leading liberals refuse to discuss this fact.

Last Saturday, the Times published 647 ridiculous words about Rubio’s driving record. The conservative world roared in fury, pushing an age-old story line about the Times’ liberal bias.

On the previous Saturday, the Times had published 2177 poisonous words, on its front page, about the leading Democratic candidate. Kevin Drum published two well-chosen paragraphs about the strangeness of the report.

Liberal pushback stopped there.

Late in April, the Times had published 4400 poisonous, front-page words about that same Democratic candidate. That report was every bit as puzzling as the later report which Drum critiqued.

On MSNBC, Chris Hayes actually vouched for that front-page hit piece! He called it “a bombshell report.”

Ever so slowly, liberal behavior is turning in this area. That said, what was Rachel Maddow doing last night on her increasingly ridiculous program?

Alas! Maddow spent her first nineteen minutes discussing the jail break in upstate New York. The first ten minutes of that segment were devoted to great jail breaks of the past. Including amusing jail breaks!

She devoted her last two segments to silly reports about Alaska wildlife. In the first segment, a family of moose had been videotaped playing in someone’s lawn sprinklers. In the second report, Maddow shrieked and screeched about the way eagles sometimes drop “creepy, toothy eel-fish” from the sky.

By her own admission, those eel-fish give Maddow bad dreams!

When Maddow discussed the White House campaign, she continued the silly partisan fawning in which she has been engaged for weeks. Most appallingly, she pleasured us liberals once again with videotape designed to show that Candidate Christie is too f*cking fat. She also explained and showed that Candidate Walker shouldn’t have let himself be photographed in a helmet during a recent motorcycle ride.

Maddow would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she would discuss the work being done by the New York Times. Increasingly, her work is a loud, undisguised disgrace in which she relentlessly talks down to viewers, apparently as part of a desperate ratings search.

The New York Times’ foolish report about Rubio produced instant, familiar pushback. But as with Candidate Gore back then, so too with Candidate Clinton today:

Leading liberals refuse to discuss what our most influential upper-class newspapers are actually doing. People are dead all over the world because the Maddows of the world behaved this way the last time. On the bright side, their careers and their social standing prospered.

Maddow has become a clownish disgrace. When you watch her ridiculous program, are you able to see that?

Tomorrow: Ever so slowly starting to speak at Salon


  1. The Times doubled down on Rubio today. They accused him of buying a boat with money he had earned (gasp!)

    For years, Senator Marco Rubio struggled under the weight of student debt, mortgages and an extra loan against the value of his home totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. But in 2012, financial salvation seemed to have arrived: A publisher paid him $800,000 to write a book about growing up as the son of Cuban immigrants.

    Rubio used this money to pay off his student debt and to buy and $80,000 boat. The Times calls the boat an extravagant splurge. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

    Romney was too rich. Rubio is too poor. Republicans just can't ever do it right, according to the Times.

    1. You know, once upon a time, I used to read this blog every day. Then after a few years of basically reading the same post every day, I drifted away.

      Then Bob went "combox" and I had a new reason to click on daily. But as Bob's traffic count dwindles, I find myself reading the same flame war among the few remaining readers every day.

      So don't worry your little heads, as you whine, "Well, if it's so boring, why are you still here?"

      I check out this blog once or twice a week for old time's sake, and soon I won't even be doing that.

    2. Isn't 06/10/2015 tomorrow?

    3. "Rubio used this money to pay off his student debt and to buy and $80,000 boat. The Times calls the boat an extravagant splurge."

      You left out the part where Rubio called the purchase extravagant.

      NY Times, 06/09/15:
      "In speeches, Mr. Rubio, a Florida Republican, spoke of his prudent plan for using the cash to finally pay off his law school loans, expressing relief that he no longer owed “a lady named Sallie Mae,” as he once called the lender.

      But at the same time, he splurged on an extravagant purchase: $80,000 for a luxury speedboat, state records show. At the time, Mr. Rubio confided to a friend that it was a potentially inadvisable outlay that he could not resist. The 24-foot boat, he said, fulfilled a dream."

    4. Are you pretending to be stupid? Notice the word "but" after the information involving the student loan. Notice "state records show." People of slightly-below-average intelligence or above can easily identify what the Times is attempting here.

    5. Oh no, 11:10, don't go.

    6. How can we miss you if you won't go away?

    7. It is more troubling that someone knows an extravagant purchase is a bad idea but does it anyway, can't help himself. (by his own admission), than if he buys it thinking it is a good idea. People who cannot control their own behavior in the face of temptation should not be elected to positions where temptation is routine and yielding to it can end careers and damage constituents. That is a very bad idea.

    8. The few times I have read his blog (<10) I often wonder, does this so-called liberal ever criticize the conservative media?

      My other issue is that all too often Bob seems a bit on the verbose side taking 2000 words to say what could be said in half as many -- making it a bit laborious and tedious to wade through.

    9. "By his own admission." By a "friend" source's claim you mean. And you've decided he "knows is a bad idea" when the unnamed friend allegedly said "potentially inadvisable." Nice critical thinking skills. With rube-like gullibility like that, why should the Times change at all?

    10. It's refreshing to have a candidate who has to think of an $80,000 boat as an extravagance, and think about whether he can afford it. As opposed to grifters who make hand over fist millions exploiting their political connections.

    11. I hate this blog and will soon stop reading it too.

    12. I hate you and look forward to one of Bob's people calling you
      an illiterate dumb ass.

    13. Learn how to read before spouting off, 116.

    14. Really David, you're a retired CPA and the only thing in THE ARTICLE that you took note of was his purchase of that boat? None of the rest of it sent up red flags for you? Here's a guy who wants to plan and oversee the federal budget while advocating self-reliance for the general population and this is how he handles his personal affairs:

      [QUOTE] ...Despite an income of $90,000 in 2001, Mr. Rubio wrote in his memoir, monthly expenses became so strained that he and his wife sold one of their two cars and, along with their young daughter, moved into the home of his mother-in-law.

      As he rose in politics, he sometimes intermingled personal and political money — using a state Republican Party credit card years ago to pay for a paving project at his home and for travel to a family reunion, and putting his relatives on campaign payrolls.

      Other moves seemed simply unwise: A few weeks ago, he disclosed that he had liquidated a $68,000 retirement account, a move that is widely discouraged by financial experts and which probably cost him about $24,000 in taxes and penalties.

      ... After cashing out the retirement account last year, he explained the decision in a deliberately folksy way: He needed to replace a broken refrigerator, and was also preparing for personal expenses related to his campaign.

      ...The structure of the PACs was unorthodox, by Mr. Rubio’s own admission. One of them was run by his wife, and was used to reimburse the couple thousands of dollars for meals, gas and long-distance calls. The other employed three of the Rubio family’s relatives.

      During his Senate campaign in 2010, his opponents pounced on the arrangement, suggesting he had used the PACs to subsidize his family’s lifestyle. “It wasn’t true,” Mr. Rubio later wrote, “but I had helped create the misunderstanding my opponents exploited.”

      ...The Rubios have further supplemented their income with royalties from his two books and Mrs. Rubio’s work for Mr. Braman, Mr. Rubio’s wealthy campaign donor. [END QUOTE]

    15. Michael Bennett,

      Somerby has been posting at the Howler for seventeen years. He had long concentrated on criticizing the MainStream(self-styled as objective)Media but there's been plenty of right-wing bashing along the way. See, for instance, several of the posts between April 15-29, 2005 in reference to Ann Coulter or the ones from August 23-30, 2004 and his mid-September posts from that year about the Swift Boaters.

      But for the last several years he's concentrated his criticism on the journalism generated by those claiming to lean or to be progressive. I think Somerby thinks if people who speak for Democrats and Democratic causes did a better job that would prove more useful in improving the lot of the general population than trying to convince fellow Democrats that the critique on offer by right-wing friendly media is unfounded.

      Very sharp of you to pick up on Somerby's tendency to be verbose having read him <10 times. I don't think any of the rest of us had noticed until you mentioned it so thanks for sharing. We'll look forward to reading any of your further complaints in the coming years after you've read >12 of his posts.

      I see you have a blog. I'll leave THIS LINK to it, maybe Somerby will see it, click on it, and see how it should be done.

    16. Way to dig real, real deep, CMike (ie. 2004 & 2005).

    17. CMike -- The Times looked at normal, reasonable things Rubio did and claimed they were bad. E.g.,

      1. The Times wrote, "A few weeks ago, he disclosed that he had liquidated a $68,000 retirement account, a move that is widely discouraged by financial experts." That last clause was an unfair criticism of Rubio. It is generally advised that people not liquidate their retirement account. However, it was a reasonable step for Rubio, because
      a) As a Senator, he will get a generous pension
      b) He's young, so he has many years to rebuild his retirement account.
      c) He needs the money now, in order to finance a good chance of being elected President.

      2. The Times wrote, "he sustained a new loss when he sold his second home in Florida’s capital, Tallahassee, for $18,000 less than he and a friend paid for it a decade ago." Again, regardless of what he paid for this property, he can use extra cash right now to finance his Presidential campaign. Those of us who have invested in stocks or real estate sometimes take losses on particular investments. That's normal.

    18. One side pushes back, the liberals don't. It's a problem.

    19. David in Cal,

      You say opting to absorb a 30% early withdrawal penalty to generate some liquidity is "normal." Really? I say if that's your best option at that moment maybe you shouldn't be choosing to run for president right then.12 months from now, if he's still in the race, I wouldn't expect his personal finances to be in any better shape than they were when he started out. What would you think? Maybe it's that we're not or, at least, I'm not factoring in just how lucrative Rubio is figuring the path he has embarked upon is going to be for him- that, in fact, this is a can't pass up business opportunity. I wonder how exactly that would work.

      Anyway, liquidating his retirement account was just one of the items from the article that I listed. I take it you found the rest of them to fall within the range of "Republican normal," too.

    20. Whoops, that "normal" withdrawal triggered a 35%, not a 30%, penalty. Easy come, easy go I guess.

    21. Excuse me? Rubio is financing his presidential campaign from what's left of a $68,000 retirement account after penalties and taxes?

    22. @1002 - nope!

  2. The NYT political reporting doesn't seem worth the price of the paper to me, so I'm not a fan. But is there any evidence at all that a major newspaper (or any periodical) could be profitably run as a business with the front page devoted to serious coverage of important issues?

  3. This morning's post:

    "Most appallingly, she pleasured us liberals once again with videotape designed to show that Candidate Christie is too f*cking fat."

    Recent TDH post:

    "Based on occasional observations, Helderman doesn’t seem to have missed a lot of meals."

    Killing the pig.

    1. You pretend not to know the difference which makes you dishonest. Or you don't know the difference which makes you stupid.

    2. Plus she is "dour."

      Not only that, she is "exceptionally dour."

      Happy camper Bob Somerby 7/29/14

    3. Regardless of any differences, both are examples of pig-killing.

  4. F150 is a "sports utility vehicle." Anyone who still uses the phrase, "Even the New York Times says..." should be presumed to be dumber than the most illiterate double-negative user.

  5. Bob says the bias in the Rubio traffic ticket article helps the Republicans, because it makes the Times' anti-conservative bias so clear. I disagree. Everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh is biased, but far fewer know that the New York Times is. Most Americans think the Times is fair and accurate.

    IMHO the more important loss is to journalism. When I was young, one could trust the Times. Today, no news organ is trustworthy. The lack of a trustworthy news organ probably contributes to the tribalism that Bob complains about. Liberals and conservatives each believe their own media, with no reliable referee to resolve the differences.

    1. I trust David in Cal for all my commentary needs.

    2. It does the right a service because it supports the recurring claim of liberal bias. That obscures the vendetta the mainstream media is conducting against Clinton.

    3. "When I was young, I thought I could trust the Times."

      FTFY - you're welcome.

    4. "When we were young we could trust the New York Times."

      BobbedIFY - you're melting.

  6. "Bob says the bias in the Rubio traffic ticket article helps the Republicans, because it makes the Times' anti-conservative bias so clear."

    No, you illiterate dumb ass. That is not what "Bob" says.

  7. I'm sorry to say that I read the Rubio piece. It was the best kind of political criticism to receive, I thought. Easy to refute and also completely unimportant. The NYT is so even-handed.

    1. Almost as easy as Clinton refuting the January 2008 version of the NYT uranium bombshell in January 2009 by having Giustra note to one reporter that Clinton arrived in Kazakhstan on another billionaire's plane, not his, and merely left town on Giustra's jet after dinner with the ex POTUS and POTRK.

  8. "Yesterday, Salon’s Joan Walsh went out of her way to say that she admires the Times’ Maggie Haberman"

    Bob Somerby, who yesterday went out of his way to say this:

    "Let’s start by stating the obvious. Back in November 2000, people had every right to vote for Candidate Nader.

    We didn’t vote for Candidate Nader, whose lifetime of work we admire."

    A week ago today Bob Somerby said this:

    "Moore was speaking on behalf of Ralph Nader, someone else whose work we admire.

    The future Candidate Nader attended our one-man show, Material World, at the D.C. Improv in October 1994. Needless to say, the future Candidate Gore came twice!

    After the show, we sat and chatted with Candidate Nader, who we admire. "

    In contrast, this is how one goes out of the way to express admiration.

    "On Twitter, Maggie Haberman (a writer I admire, for the record) defended the piece,,,"

    One has to go out of the way to hit the correct parenthesis key twice.

    I will not go out of my way to show how Ralph Nader expressed his admiration for both Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Obama.

    1. Bob has to "admire" Nader if he sticks to his narrative that it was the "War on Gore" and only the "War on Gore" that put Dubya in the White House.

      Once the simple-minded have found the one, true, simple explanation, nothing else matters. Not even the fact that without Nader or even his final week swing into Florida against his promises, Gore would likely have won despite the "War on Gore."

    2. He never said it was only the war on Gore, but without the closeness of the results created by the war on Gore, Bush would not have been given the presidency.

    3. De-emphasizing Nader's role in the 2000 election bolsters Somerby's War on Gore as the proximate cause for the Bush presidency. Same goes for de-emphasizing the SCOTUS role in the 2000 election.

    4. "He never said it was only the War on Gore"

      @ 2:57 the dead of Iraq, who look up from their graves blaming Chris Matthews, salute your simple minded loyalty to dear old Bob Somerby.

      "He never said it was only the War on Gore"

      Let's see how far you and I need to go back in the archives to find him saying something like:

      "People are dead all over the world because the Maddows of the world behaved this way the last time."

      Why we don't have to go further back than the closing paragraphs of today's post.

    5. 3:18, any contributing factor that made the difference is the "cause."

    6. Yes 4:34.

      I would say Gore's failure to promptly correct the Love Story statement when it first appeared would be a contributing factor.

      I might suggest Gore's inartful choice of language on a number of occasions, like "I took the initiative in creating the internet," "I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal" or citing prices paid by his mother in law and for his dogs medicine which were inaccurate all more than a year after the Love Story debacle indicate how careless he was about his own integrity. But then, having worked as a journalist for 5 to 7 years, Gore couldn't be expected to know how the press worked.

    7. Yeah, you make a good point. Inartful choice of language can be lethal, especially when going up against a virtual Cicero like G. W. - "is our children learning" - Bush.

    8. Well, mm. Was they? Bob say so.

  9. This post is an excellent follow up to Somerby's expose of the Washington Post's jihad against Marco Rubio's "$10 million man," the car dealer sugar daddy who the Post maliciously implied provided financial benefits to the maligned Florida statesman.

    Who can forget Somerby and the Howler's coverage of that?

  10. Rubio's luxury speedboat


  11. I know Somerby is waiting for all the evidence to be in, but I am looking forward to hearing about the witnesses who heard that young thuggish girl in the bikini mouth off the the McKinney cop. I hope they were within two hundred yards earshot like the credible witness in the Mike Brown shooting.

    1. The dry cleaners called. Your sheets are done.

    2. 7:07 college aged girls like yourself who attempt to shut down discussion with R bombs and KKK bombs are less relevant each day. She was thuggettish and hopefully the officer in question can find a good position after being run off by the savage lynch mob on TV and in McKinney.

    3. Yet another group of pseudos helping keep Texas red.


    4. I'm waiting for the officer to explain how the 14-year-old girl crying for her mama had superhuman strength and that he was oh so afraid for his life.

      That seems to be the standard defense.

    5. I am waiting for Bob to explain to his readers why coverage of this event proves pseudo-liberals on the One True Channel hate black children because it had nothing to do with the amazing progress black children in Texas have made on their test scores.

    6. Discussion? What a joke!

    7. Also, completely off-topic, but ConfedTrolls gotta troll.

    8. Troll on, Stormfront.

    9. Original! But argument is a relic of the sexist patriarchy. Only an expression of your SJW feelz and screaming "racist" or "sexist" required. Pardon my microaggression.

    10. In poker, a "tell" is when a player does something to give his or her hand away. For bigoted trolls, it's "SJW" & twittertalk.

      Troll on, scumbag.

    11. Trigger warning. For brain dead humorless libs, it's "racist" "sexist" "stormfront" "KKK" "It's Caytlin not Bruce" or "THAT'S NOT FUNNY"!

  12. Christie is too fat.

    1. And Bob thinks his readers are too fat headed to notice that the lead of Maddow's story on Christie was his continuing trouble with the GW Bridge issue.

      Note to Causal Readers of this Blog: Back when Bob first covered "Bridgegate" he said was "the massively ginned-up controversy."

    2. What Bob really meant to say was instead of attacking the New York Times for its wasted efforts of Rubio's tickets or its War on Hillary, Maddow was covering a candidate's appearance.

      Back in 1999-2000 this kind of coverage was used to say horrible things about Gore's lactating manhood and spread sexist smears on Naomi Wolf.

      For example, see Part 2 of the excellent Series Dumbnification Studies in which Bob wrote:

      "In a undisguised month-long misogynist stew, they declared—absent any actual evidence—that Naomi Wolf had told him that he should wear earth tones. (Al Gore hired a woman to teach him to be a man!)"

      Maddow does it all night long.

  13. There is noticeably a bunch to know about this. I believe you made various nice points in features also.
    instagram viewer