Part 1—New York Times at war: For ourselves, we don’t especially like the smell of total war in the morning.
We found it hard to miss that smell in Saturday’s New York Times. The famous paper was at it again, this time with a 2200-word, front-page report about the venality of You Know Who and her “distasteful” husband.
Deborah Sontag’s front-page “news report” had everything such “journalists” seem to enjoy. It had a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, whose list of past boyfriends was explored. Beyond that, the luscious model was repeatedly winged for kinky-sounding conduct.
Even better, best by far, the former SI swimsuit model had given big bucks to Bill Clinton!
Actually, the luscious model had made a donation to the Clinton Foundation. According to Sontag’s report, she made the donation with an agreement that the Clinton Foundation and her own substantial charity, The Happy Hearts Fund, would sponsor joint projects in Haiti.
It’s very, very hard to make out the problem with the behavior described in Sontag’s distraction-clogged report. Truth to tell, Sontag doesn’t really try to define the supposed problem.
Instead, she gives a platform to one lone “expert.” Early in her report, the expert offers this appraisal of You Know Who’s bad conduct:
SONTAG (5/30/15): “This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it—what would be the word?—distasteful.”In this, his only quote, the irate professor refers to Nemcova as “the model.” It isn’t necessarily his fault that Sontag presented his words that way. Perhaps, for Sontag, that belittling description helped drive the desired point.
(For purposes of this discussion, Nemcova is basically a former model. According to Sontag, she has been running her high-profile charity for something approaching ten years.)
Truthfully, Sontag makes no attempt to explain White’s aggressive appraisal. She cites the views of no other named experts at any point in her piece.
It seems clear that Professor White is very, very upset. But why is Professor White upset? Does anyone share his view?
Frankly, we’re never told. In a 2200-word report, no one is asked to evaluate White’s aggressive remarks.
What did the professor mean when he says Clinton was “riding the back of this small charity” in the instance described? Why exactly does he think the transaction involved here was “distasteful”—“a telling example of the way the Clintons operate?”
In 2200 filler-clogged words, Sontag never asks White to explain. A cynic might think she possibly had the quote she wanted—and with it, the latest chance to engage in total war about the Clintons’ greed.
For ourselves, we have no idea what’s supposed to be wrong with the transaction in question. In this transaction, a smaller high-profile charity transferred $500,000 to a larger, higher-profile charity, subject to the agreement that the two entities would use the money for joint projects in Haiti.
In exchange for this transaction, one of the most famous people in the world headlined the smaller entity’s annual fund-raising event.
What is supposed to be wrong about that? In 2200 piddle-filled words, Sontag never seems to feel the need to explain.
Instead, she includes a string of anecdotes which seem designed to embarrass that woman, Miss Nemcova. More significantly, she employs every possible buzzword from the current total war being waged against You Know Who.
To her credit, Sontag is a master at the use of insinuative language. Comically but pathetically, this was her fifth paragraph:
SONTAG: Happy Hearts’ former executive director believes the transaction was a quid pro quo, which rerouted donations intended for a small charity with the concrete mission of rebuilding schools after natural disasters to a large foundation with a broader agenda and a budget 100 times bigger.The transaction was a “quid pro quo,” Sontag clownishly suggests. So is every transaction on earth if you want to use that loaded term, a term which is currently very hot in a certain total war.
At any rate, Bill Clinton engaged in a quid pro quo! The Times had finally found one!
It’s hard to believe that Sontag’s language selection could get any sillier than that. But look at this example of her InsinuSpeak, direct from paragraph 9:
SONTAG: Never publicly disclosed, the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to “unlock human potential” through “the power of creative collaboration.”The episode was “never public disclosed,” Sontag writes, employing another verbal weapon from the current war.
In so doing, she suggests that some sort of “disclosure” was somehow avoided. But she gives readers no idea of what she could possibly mean.
How absurd was Sontag willing to be as she lowered her guns on her target? Even we had to marvel at the way she sliced the lunch meat here:
SONTAG: In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala.If the donation counts as a cost, it took Happy Hearts over the top! Thirty-three percent would have been OK. The donation to the Clinton Foundation took them to 34!
(Should the donation count as a cost? We’re not sure! According to Sontag’s report, isn’t Happy Hearts still going to spend the money through those joint ventures with the better-known Clinton Foundation?)
Was something actually wrong with this transaction? Everything is possible, or so we always say.
That said, it’s very hard to see what the problem is supposed to be here. Between her buzz words and her sexualized snark at Nemcova’s expense, Sontag never quite gets around to explaining—and she cites exactly one expert alleging that something was wrong.
We’ve skipped the slipperiest part of Sontag’s report—the way she chose to end it. We’ll start with that journalistic embarrassment tomorrow.
But when we read this lengthy front-page “report” in the New York Times, we thought we detected a familiar old smell. We detected the smell of total war—a total war the Times has been waging for a good many years, or so it frequently seems.
Why is the New York Times waging this war? Most importantly:
Will the public ever be warned about this endless dimwitted war? When will liberals decide to insist that the public be warned>
Tomorrow: Unexplained Haitian protesters!
The Clinton Foundation is a real charity, but it's also a slush fund for the Clintons. because they control it. They use Foundation money in ways that are not always charitable.ReplyDelete
E.g., when Hillary was prevented from hiring Sid Blumenthal at the State Dept., he was instead paid by the Clinton Foundation to offer Hillary foreign affairs advice, according to the New York Times.
Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html?_r=0
P.S. to mm -- if you didn't like the two cites indicating that conservatives are more generous than liberals, you can find lots of others at https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=conservatives%20more%20generous%20than%20liberals
Research, message guidance, and the planning of commemorative events are critical in the charitable fight against poverty and disease around the globe.Delete
Clearly nobody has served as a better "model" of research and message guidance in his career than Sid Blumenthal. And we all know he is practically a "professor" of planning commemorative events.
David seems to be suggesting that Blumenthal has no right to work for anyone in any capacity.Delete
He also seems to be suggesting that no one with any past or present tie to Clintons has the right to engage in any business venture with anyone anywhere in the world, successful or not. And heaven help Blumenthal if he passes along any "intelligence" from anyone he might have acquired while doing "research." How dare Hillary have any connections with anyone not 100% approved by Obama!!! or approved by David and the NY Times.
Those cites about conservatives being more generous than liberals are confounded by religious giving. Church tithing doesn't count as generosity because it is (1) dictated by religious obligation not empathy, (2) goes to maintaining the structure of the church not necessarily those in need, (3) produces social benefits for the giver, (4) is mandatory not optional for true believers, (5) is a quid pro quo for religious prayers, blessings, temple access for Mormons, and other religious participation.
Anon 10:54 -- What I meant to suggest is that Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation to provide foreign affairs input to the Secretary of State.Delete
Thanks for your list regarding generosity. I appreciate your clear arguments, but i disagree with them.
1. When someone in need is helped, that's generosity, regardless of motive.
2. Religious institutions provide enormous amounts to needy people.
3. Liberal donations also often provide social benefits to the giver.
4. Some church donations are "mandatory" only to the degree that the donor chooses to follow the church's demands. By comparison, taxes are truly mandatory. If you don't pay them, the government takes the money from you by force or even imprisons you.
5. Again, the motive doesn't matter. The degree of help is what counts. In fact, to the degree that the Mormon church encourages generosity to others, that speaks well for that church IMHO.
mm you continuously demonstrate your total slavish devotion to the kind stupidity and blind sense of political loyalty that causes the blogger you like to describe liberals like you as dumb and tribal.Delete
"While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
You are right mm. Hillary only accepted fees for some speeches so she could give others for donations to the foundation and still others pro-bono. She wasn't paid to give those free speeches.Delete
And David never said Mrs. Clinton hired him. Where the fuck does it say being dumb and tribal means you can't make shit up?
This is precisely what David said, jackass.Delete
"What I meant to suggest is that Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation to provide foreign affairs input to the Secretary of State."
He also called the Clinton Foundation a "slush fund". David deserves to have his smirking trollish teeth knocked out for making that scurrilous accusation.
You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.
David didn't say Mrs. Clinton hired him.Delete
If Monica had gotten that gig at the UN you couldn't say Bill Clinton hired her.
You'd have to say Bill Richardson did. On a referral from Vernon Jordan. Who heard about her from Betty Currie who was acting on a tip about her job skills from Socks the Cat.
Go fuck yourself. You know the important part of the accusation was "that Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation to provide foreign affairs input to the Secretary of State."Delete
Whoever hired him to work for the Clinton Foundation, the purpose was most definitely NOT "to offer Hillary foreign affairs advice". That is the bullshit straight from the warped and twisted mind of David in sunny California.
You seem to buy the argument Mr. Blumenthal was hired for all those commemorative events he planned. His foreign policy advice to the Secretary was just a free bonus, and perhaps she was unaware he had a financial interest in the advice he was giving her gratis?Delete
There is no "argument" about it, and the NY Times never said what David claimed it said. He's just an imbecile who sees what he wants to see.Delete
If churches helped poor people out of generosity, they wouldn't impose a faith test on those receiving charity, as the Catholic church has done, including Mother Teresa, as the Salvation Army does, and as the Mormon Church does.Delete
The NY Times "never said what David claimed it said." And David never said what mm claimed he said. See how easy it is to get from Al Gore "took the intiative in creating" to All Gore "said he invented."Delete
I copied word for word what David wrote, with quotation marks. How can you say he didn't say it?Delete
Do you work for the NY Times, cause you sure are one dumb fuck?
The very first comment on this article, written by David,:Delete
".....he was instead paid by the Clinton Foundation to offer Hillary foreign affairs advice, according to the New York Times."
Then, next the somewhat amended statement from David.
This is precisely what David said.
"What I meant to suggest is that Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation to provide foreign affairs input to the Secretary of State."
I see you aren't interested in an intellectually honest dialogue, so as I said, fuck off. I'm done with you.
Anon1:51 wrote: a faith test on those receiving charity, as the Catholic church has done, including Mother Teresa, as the Salvation Army does, and as the Mormon Church does.Delete
Can you explain what sort of "faith tests"? Do you have cites?
Christopher Hitchens described the way Mother Teresa would only treat good Catholics in her ministry. Frank McCourt describes the same thing in Angela's Ashes, where the Priest approved charity based on church attendance. The Mormon Church only gives out its food bank items and other assistance to Mormons in good standing with their bishops. This means attending services, tithing, going to confession (Catholic), letting the home teachers visit (Mormon), and so on. The Salvation Army only gives out its food after you sit through the sermon. Strings are attached. These charitable acts are used to convert and coerce the faithful into religious observance. People who are themselves religious will recognize what I am talking about.Delete
I am mystified. In this total war waged against the Clintons since 1992, the only victory by the Times seems to have been against poor Al Gore.ReplyDelete
I wonder why the Times chose, in this total war, to not attack Hillary in 2000 as well when she chose to become the Senator from New York. Clearly this was a strategic error of epic proportions in the annals of total war.
What about Clinton's impeachment? What about Obama's nomination? I don't count those as Clinton victories.Delete
I would imagine (1) they had their hands full attacking Gore in 2000, (2) they thought Hillary would lose on her own, (3) they imagined the threat from the Clintons was done with Bill out of office, (4) attacking a woman who was a highly popular First Lady might have seemed like a bad idea, especially at a time when it appeared she had no clout.
If this is not total war, why has this series of lengthy front page reports attacking the Clintons been appearing, especially given the timing to coincide with Hillary's announcement of her candidacy? If I were more cynical, I would believe the draft Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigns were also organized to nip her candidacy in the bud in a double blow from both the right and left, before she has the chance to gain traction by winning primaries -- before the voters have a chance to express their support for her.
Many of us expected that this would get ugly, but I for one didn't expect attacks supposedly "from the left," or this ugly this soon. Shows you what motivated, rich conservatives can do with 8 years to plan their strategy.
The Gruesome Sounds of Total WarDelete
"In her first outing as a candidate for elective office, Hillary Rodham Clinton has demonstrated a firm grasp of a basic rule of politics. That is the one about never interfering when your opponent is being engulfed with bad news. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has campaigned with such quiet decorum during Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's travails that the public may be tempted to overlook the accomplishment represented by her formal nomination yesterday."
Mrs. Clinton's Moment NY Times Editorial 5/17/2000
"When Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in their state 16 months ago, New Yorkers deserved to be deeply skeptical. She had not lived, worked or voted in New York State. She had never been elected to any public office, yet she radiated an aura of ambition and entitlement that suggested she viewed a run for the United States Senate as a kind of celebrity stroll.
But in the intervening months, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be an intelligent and dignified candidate who has acquired a surprising depth of knowledge about the social-services needs of New York City and the economic pain of the upstate region. Her political growth has been aided by her combat with two worthy Republican opponents, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his successor as the G.O.P. candidate, Representative Rick Lazio. With full respect for their abilities, we endorse Mrs. Clinton as the one candidate who will best fill the vast gap that will be left in the Senate and within the Democratic Party by the retirement of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan."
Hillary Clinton for the Senate, NY Times Editorial 10/22/2000
11:13, let's not forget the 2008 primaries:Delete
"As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election."
God, that NYTimes really hates her.
This is like Marcus saying she is a Hillary supporter. Why do they savage her on one page while endorsing her on another? Which has more impact -- an endorsement on the op-ed page or many inches of attack on the first page?Delete
Saying "I love Hillary, but where did she get that hair?" Does the "I love Hillary" part do more good than the comment on her hair does harm?
"I love Bill, but why is he so greedy?" Is this an endorsement? This is the game the NY Times seems to be playing.
The editorials reflect the opinions of publisher Pinch Sulzberger. One would hope that Sulzberger doesn't enforce his preferences on the news side. He should be praised for allowing the news people to report the news as they see it. Apparently the news people see some Hillary flaws. BTW I suspect that most of these news people are Democrats, who will vote for Hillary against any Republican.Delete
No, this is more like saying "given the smoke raised over what a close campaign aide described as Bimbo eruptions, it's clear Bill only accepted BJ's from one ex-intern who flashed her thong cald fanny at him in the White House."Delete
Whatever it is @ 11:44, it doesn't sound like the plutocrats who are the masters of those slaves writing news articles and columns are very effective at waging total war.Delete
"Ms. Nemcova then met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”Delete
Did anyone say that Clinton didn't demand money for speaking? The money went to the foundation, not to him personally.Delete
Do you think knocking Hillary out of the Democratic nomination in 2008 was ineffective?
Clinton stuffed a substantial chunk of change straight in his own Maddow-like pants. Nobody ever claimed the foundation saw a nickel of the $500K the big dog took for speaking to them Russkie bankers.Delete
That's right! It was the press that did in Hillary in 2008. They just couldn't stop Gore from getting the nomination so they dreamed up this unqualified black guy and won the next round.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
11:01 AM says:Delete
Many of us expected that this would get ugly, but I for one didn't expect attacks supposedly "from the left," or this ugly this soon.
Do you have any idea of what the meaning of "the left" in American politics would be? If you do, how would you not expect a long time member of the late but still detested DLC, who was also a member of President Obama's first term national security team and who has announced for the presidency, to be attacked by the left?
As for who might qualify as an actual leftist in this country after 98 years of government and business sponsored modern propaganda techniques against worker empowering politics, wouldn't the one self-professed Socialist/socialist who is an elected federal official and who has been making weekly radio appearances on the Thom Hartmann Show for more than a decade advocating for a dramatically expanded role in social policy for the federal government and for a highly progressive taxation system qualify as bona fide member of the what constitutes the left in this country by everyone outside of the cult of Clinton and/or Obama?
Is this some sort of religious thing with you, as in "The Third Way is the one way- There Is No Alternative"?
Someone with the name Socialist officially attached to his name is dead in national politics. That's a fact of political life. Someone took Sanders aside and convinced him that he could do some good by "running" against Clinton, the one Democrat with a big enough following to beat all of the Republican candidates handily in the general election. It is to his shame that he listened to them. He is making an idiot of himself, being mocked (a la Jon Stewart and his hair remarks), will not move Hillary a job past her preferred positions on issues, but is providing independents and less informed voters with an alternative. That can only help Republican candidates. It is majorly stupid that he is doing this and I can only assume it is (1) disdain for the realities of politics, and (2) ego, that is making him think he is doing anything worthwhile by running.Delete
My own politics are to the left of Sanders. I think it would be a radical act to elect our first female president. I also am pragmatic enough to want to win this next election. Sanders is part of the attack on Clinton, whether his supporters are diehard Obama folks or Catholic Democrats (like Dowd) or Naderites or Republicans. The effect is the same. The left needs to rethink its priorities.
In this case, I think the left is being played. It is certainly being foolish. The Right is licking its chops and egging the left on in its folly.
That's fine, but Bernie is smearing Hillary Clinton with the bullshit smears coming from the NYTimes and their new friend the scumbag ratfucker and Bernie is smart enough not to let the media suck him into a mud fight with Clinton that will help no one but the republicans.Delete
By the way, for your interest, here is an interesting comparison of voting records between Hillary and Bernie.
Perhaps the only real way to measure this is to compare Sanders’ and Hillary’s actual Senate voting records during the period of time when they were in Congress together, an apples-to-apples comparison, so to speak. Back during the 2008 campaign another DK diary did just that (link below), and determined that, based on an average of voting ratings from the liberal ADA and the conservative ACU, Sanders had a 95.7 rating while Hillary was at 94.4 (the same rating as Ted Kennedy at the time). I’m not really sure if the 1.3 point difference is really statistically significant.
Obama did great damage to the democratic coalition in 2008 and tried to repair that damage by bringing Hillary into the cabinet. Hillary took it in large part because she is a loyal democrat.
My own politics are to the left of Sanders. I think it would be a radical act to elect our first female president.Delete
I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere but I'm just not getting it.
You not getting something is probably the worst-kept secret.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP) AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATEDDelete
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world....
Got a Clinton statement on this that's within 1.3% of what Sanders is saying?
Dear Chucklehead Mike:Delete
Check out Juan Cole's blog re: Sanders & the recent Pew polls.
Chucklehead Mike? Busted, I'll go quietly.Delete
One would think you would be pleased to know our leading candidate has a very strong progressive voting record identical to Bernie Sanders. Instead you react with anger. Very strange.Delete
Yeah mm, keep going with that, "Everyone outside of the cult of Clinton is angry or otherwise irrational." It's your strongest argument. That, along with the idea that having a 90% plus progressive voting record in a corporate controlled institution like the Senate demonstrates you're progressive.Delete
(As for the rational calm coming from ClintonWorld, here's what it sounds like, "...but Bernie is smearing Hillary Clinton with the bullshit smears coming from the NYTimes and their new friend the scumbag ratfucker and Bernie is smart enough not to let the media suck him into a mud fight with Clinton that will help no one but the republicans.")
CMike, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say Bernie is NOT smearing Hillary Clinton .....Delete
This should have been evident to you by my statement that followed:
("Bernie is smart enough not to let the media suck him into a mud fight with Clinton that will help no one but the republicans.")
If you have a problem with TPP you should take it up with Obama. I think it's amazing that the same people who shoved Obama down our throats in '08 are now attacking Hillary for not taking a position on TPP, when in fact she has no vote on the matter.
CMike, I really think we are on the same side.
Getting it on with the Clintons: Soft and hardReplyDelete
I don't like the smell of Somerby abandoning his war on Ruth Marcus for a new target just because it would push a double digit series into a new month. So I'll BE LIKE BOB, and replay an old favorite.
So Somerby suggests Ruth Marcus writes as if she is a lunatic having a nervous breakdown. And why, exactly is that?
Because Marcus has suggested, repeatedly, that it is unseemly for Hillary Clinton, in between service as Secretary of State and her candidacy for President, to give speeches for six figure remuneration to companies which might seek favors from the administration she might head if elected.
Repeatedly in his attacks on the "lunatic" Marcus, Somerby has left out of his presentation the key points made by Marcus.
She notes that conservative columnist William Safire labeled the practice of ex-Presidents giving paid speeches a "foreign revolving-door ripoff" when Ronald Reagan started it. She details how Clinton and the Bushes expanded the practice. The she states what, in her opinion, makes things worse in Hillary Clinton's case as an ex-Secretary of State.
"What once screamed sleaze now is considered post-presidential business as usual. ....
So what’s the problem when Hillary Clinton gets in on the act? It is the difference between being firmly on the exit side of the revolving door and being poised to circle back in. The former presidents are formers. They’re cashing in on the past.
But Hillary Clinton has, she hopes, a political future. And that counsels prudence. Just because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t mean you need to take the money."
The Clinton's knew, since 1992, of the scrutiny of their personal finances beginning with Whitewater. And they knew that scrutiny would not stop with Bill's departure from the White House because
Hillary elected to pursue high office herself.
The response of the Clintons and their tribal followers is that they are unfairly targeted for either doing nothing wrong and/or for doing nothing that should be considered wrong. With that mindset it is perfectly logical for them to assume doing further things that might raise eyebrows (and generate political attacks and bad press) is simply more of this unfair treatment and continue down the same path.
Marcus's concern is clear: "Because to take the check is to invite suspicions that they are seeking to curry favor with you, in your future role. And that your actions were influenced by this largesse."
That is less insanity on Marcus's part than it is stupidity on Clinton's for not laying off a little of the personal lucre while still pursuing the Presidency herself for a decade and a half.
But for Somerby there is a way to describe his multiple posts on the topic. Considering how he has accused journalists of bad practices, tribalism, and being slaves to personal wealth and career advancement at the behest of "plutocrats" who "own" them, one word stands out.
Somerby is a hypocrite.
Lots of politicians cycling back in also give speeches for money. I don't buy your argument that when Clinton does it, it is sleazy but when others do it, it is fine.Delete
When Somerby leaves out, in the name of brevity, large paragraphs that support but otherwise add nothing new to his summary, he is not being a hypocrite. I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
When you can't effectively defend the indefensible bullshit of Marcus, Sontag, and the NYT, you attack Somerby.
The journalists are indeed engaging in "bad practices" as Somerby has been showing.
As a poster here, one joins in by referring to speaking fees donated to charity as "filthy lucre."
"That is less insanity on Marcus's part than it is stupidity on Clinton's for not laying off a little of the personal lucre while still pursuing the Presidency herself for a decade and a half."Delete
This is a good point. It's analogous to the feminist who says "I have a right to walk down the street at 2 am without being attacked. I'm not doing anything wrong. A potential attacker is at fault." And then walks down the street at 2 am and is attacked. Is she at fault? No. Stupid? Yes.
@ 1:48 trots out the unnamed "lots of politicians."Delete
@ 1:59 trots out the "speaking fees donated to charity"
while ignoring the substantial amount of such fees which, like big dog and Maddow, were stuffed into the provberbial "pants."
Why is it that no one is being attacked for charging speaking fees except Bill and HIllary Clinton?Delete
How much do you suppose Sarah Palin charges for her speeches? How much does Arnold Schwarzenegger charge?
From Uncle Webster (Or is it Aunt Merriam):Delete
Full Definition of LUCRE
monetary gain : profit ; also : money
bread [slang], bucks, cabbage [slang], cash, change, chips, coin, currency, dough, gold, green, jack [slang], kale [slang], legal tender, lolly [British], long green [slang], loot, money, moola (or moolah) [slang], needful, pelf, scratch [slang], shekels (also sheqels or shekelim or shekalim or sheqalim), tender, wampum
Full Definition of ADJECTIVE
: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else
Examples of ADJECTIVE
The word personal in “personal lucre,” filthy in “filthy lucre,” and deceptive and stupid in “deceptive and stupid comment" are adjectives.
Those who substitute the second adjective for the first engage in the third example.
"In this, his only quote, the irate professor refers to Nemcova as “the model.” It isn’t necessarily his fault that Sontag presented his words that way. Perhaps, for Sontag, that belittling description helped drive the desired point."ReplyDelete
It is, of course, Somerby's fault that he refers to Doug White as the "professor." In fact he uses that title four times when Sontag never does. Bob eschews use of his first name in favor of a title he frequently employs sarcastically to belittle people who teach at a higher level of education than did he.
Right, and when Somerby does that, he is making a point every bit as much as Sontag is when she calls Nemcova "the model." Nice to see you get the point.Delete
Yep. It puts Bob in the same boat. Good to see you get that too.Delete
Until the perfect mediaDelete
critic comes along I think it's totally inappropriate for anyone to find fault with our beloved corporate media. As far as I'm concerned one critic is one too many, to the contrary, we can't praise them enough.
Bad Somerby bad!
Rhetorical devices are available to all writers. It is how the devices are being used that matters here.Delete
Perhaps the reason White and Sontag describe Nemcova s "the model" is because that is her profession. Perhaps the reason Sontag does not describe White as a professor is because he is not one.Delete
This article by journalist David Sirota presents evidence suggesting that State Dept. approval of some weapon sales to foreign governments were tied to donations to the Clinton Foundation. Sirota writes, "The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,"ReplyDelete
BTW Sirota once worked for Bernie Sanders and later specialized in finding quotes that could be used against Bush, so Sirota is clearly not a conservative.
I don't understand Bob's total support for the Clintons. His columns suggest that he made a logical error, namely, assuming that since some Clinton criticisms are unfair or invalid, then all of them are.
"...since some Clinton criticisms are unfair or invalid, then all of them are..."Delete
Which criticisms are you conceding are unfair or invalid, jerkoff?
Another question for the wingnut Kreskin: what evidence do you have in support of your claim Somerby assumes all Clinton criticisms are invalid?Delete
Dear wingnut Kreskin: tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock ....Delete
Could even D in C actually not be aware the avowed Nader leftist (Sirota) hates the Clintons on a par with him, and after about wrecking the country with the part he played in bring W to the White House, carries a similar self loathing streak?ReplyDelete
Whatever. I do find it interesting Bob is not siting the letters sections on these pieces, do they suggest a readership once burned twice shy on the Paper of Whitewater Record? Maybe they don't. But it doesn't matter, at this point people will start noticing the Times all out struggle to place an unelectable candidate in the Democratic slot, no matter who they are going to officially endorse.
All out war is right.
You give our resident conWhore waaaayyyy too much credit!Delete
And how soon we forget. Didn't the Times and Wapo contract with that Breitbart Jackass ("Clinton Cash") to share opp research and then announce it in a joint press release? That decisively ended any illusion that they would report impartially about a Clinton candidacy and that IT'S ON.
Sirota is just an ambitious twat pretending to be left of Glen Greenwood. The fact that David the Troll cites him as "even the left thinks that ..." shows you what he's all about.
From the charitable-outreach foundation of the Teachers College - Columbia University, Professor White's employer:ReplyDelete
Recent Donors -
•Carnegie Corporation of New York
•The Ford Foundation
•Foundation for Child Development
•Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
•William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
•Jewish Foundation for Education of Women
•John and Patricia Klingenstein Fund
•Emily Davie and Joseph S. Kornfeld Foundation
•Lumina Foundation for Education
•John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
•Peter G. Peterson Foundation
•The Rauch Foundation
•Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
•The Rockefeller Foundation
•Say Yes to Education
•The van Otterloo Family Foundation
•The Wyncote Foundation
•Young Arts Foundation
I'll add you to Somerby as one who has White's title down incorrectly. I'm hopeful you are not referring to the Teachers College as his employer within Columbia. That would give you a step up on Somerby in the error department.Delete
That's mighty "White" of you.Delete
Türk Porno Resim, Türk Porno, Türk Porno izle, Türk sikiş,ReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş, Türk porno, Mobil Porno,
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma, Porno izle,sikiş,
Porno izle, Porno video seyret, Türk porno ve sikiş seyret, Porno,
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş,Türkçe Sex,
Türk Porno, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sikiş, Türk porno izle, Porno izle, Porno,
Porno, Sikiş, Porno izle, Mobil Porno, Türk Porno, Sikiş izle, Seks izle
I like your post so much. Many thanks! friv4schoolonline.netReplyDelete
I was very impressed by this post, this site has always been pleasant news. Thank you very much for such an interesting post. Keep working, great job! In my free time, I like play game: douchebagworkout2.org. What about you?ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
This is an incredible method to rapidly resolve any issues your Sim is having that is influencing their state of mind.ReplyDelete