Human capability watch: PolitiFact tries to quote Candidate Sanders!

SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 2016

We humans aren't up to this task:
Staggering? Remarkable? Astounding? Bizarre?

What word would you apply to PolitiFact's attempt to report the flap which broke out this Wednesday night when Candidate Sanders made this statement about Candidate Clinton:

"She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president."

The ensuing dispute was the type of silly, unfortunate flap which often occurs in campaigns. In this case, as in so many others, the real chaos began when we the humans attempted to discuss, or pretended to discuss, the silly, unfortunate flap.

As we've told you in the past, we the humans simply aren't up to such basic tasks. Quickly, a few examples:

In the past few days, we've been surprised to think that we might see the old Chris Matthews back.

Over the past eighteen years, Matthews went from vicious Clinton/Gore/Clinton attack dog to sycophantic Hillary Clinton supporter, all before a recent halting shift which seemed to harden this week. As we watched his weird performance on yesterday's Hardball, we flashed back to the decade in which we liberals sat and stared as Matthews seemed to do ownership's bidding, relentlessly savaging Candidate Gore and helping send Bush to the White House.

(Matthews was much more influential at that time, when there were many fewer cable "news shows.")

We saw flashes of the old Matthews this week. But then, hapless pseudo-journalism was involved in this week's flap from the start.

By some accounts, the flap began with this attempt at news reporting by CNN's Jeff Zeleny. The report displays extremely weak journalistic skills. (File under: "provocative paraphrase in the absence of direct quotation.")

The flap also involved Morning Joe, where slightly odd questioning of Candidate Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the brouhaha. (Morning Joe has been a state-of-the-art journalistic gong-show for most of the past year.)

That said, nothing can match what happened when the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact org attempted to fact-check the flap. Impossible? Amazing? Bizarre? What would be the appropriate word to describe this org's performance?

We've often warned you about a basic possibility. It often seems that we the humans simply aren't up to the task of performing basic journalism. Absent guidance from powerful gatekeepers, it often seems that we simply aren't sharp enough to conduct our own affairs.

(Down through the ages, literary greats have explored variants of this general notion. In recent weeks, we've often thought of The Grand Inquisitor, a famous piece which explores one variant of that idea.)

That said, we were amazed by PolitiFact's attempt to fact-check this latest flap. Its piece was written by C. Eugene Emery, a forty-year veteran of the Providence Journal. It was edited by Angie Drobnic Holan, who won a Pulitzer in 2009 with the PolitiFact team.

Good God! Holan is the editor of PolitiFact, full freaking stop! She and Emery aren't the inexperienced kids who now people so much of our press corps, helping owners save money on wages. A pair of veterans tried to fact-check what happened in this flap.

Holan edited Emery's piece, and she's a Pulitzer winner! That said, try to believe that PolitiFact's account started out like this:
POLITIFACT (4/7/16): Presidential candidates spend a lot of time explaining why they are the best qualified for the job. But now a brouhaha has broken out between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over whether the other is qualified at all.

During an April 6 rally at Temple University in Philadelphia, Sanders contended that in the wake of Clinton's loss in Wisconsin, she is getting a little nervous. "And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, 'not qualified to be president,’ " he told the crowd.

Sanders then said, "I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs."

[...]

So is Sanders correct that Clinton has been saying the he was "not qualified to be president"?
PolitiFact went on to judge Sanders' statement "Mostly False."

That said, our report isn't an attempt to assess the performance of Candidate Clinton or Candidate Sanders. We're judging the PolitiFact org, and through them our whole "human race!"

Bizarre? Impossible? Beyond belief? With what expression would you describe what PolitiFact did in that highlighted passage—in the part of their report where they haplessly tried to quote what Sanders said?

Question:

Is any journalistic task so basic that our journalists can handle it? Below, you see the words Sanders actually said, as compared to PolitiFact's attempt at "quoting" his statement:
The words Sanders actually said:
"And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president."

PolitiFact's attempt at quoting what Sanders said:
"And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, 'not qualified to be president,’ " he told the crowd.
In the passage in question, Candidate Sanders said nineteen words. In its hapless attempt at quoting the hopeful, PolitiFact recorded just seventeen.

They omitted two words—"quote unquote." There was no reason to omit those words. PolitiFact provided no sign that words had been omitted.

Beyond that, those are actually important words in Sanders' statement that night. In a head-slapping act of incompetence, PolitiFact didn't record them!

Let's recall what we said above. We aren't trying to judge Clinton or Sanders here. We're assessing the competence of two veteran journalists, including one Pulitzer winner.

These journalists tried to quote a statement by Sanders. Strangely and weirdly, they failed.

Humans, can we talk? When you "quote" a statement by someone, you're supposed to record every word! If you decide to leave words out, you're supposed to show you left words out by using an ellipsis (a dot-dot-dot).

That said, you're not supposed to leave words out if the words are important. In this case, the words these giants chose to omit actually were.

Fellow humans, please! By saying "quote unquote," Sanders heightened the sense that he was quoting Candidate Clinton, which he actually wasn't doing.

For that reason, it's stunning to think that PolitiFact would simply decide to omit those words as they presented their "quotation."

Nothing will turn on this peculiar decision, of course. Partisans, fans, supporters and hustlers will present the facts of this flap in a wide array of ways. In the end, PolitiFact's weird account of what Sanders said will make no particular difference.

Having said that, let us also say this. Emery and Holan remind us of an important fact:

This is no journalistic act so basic and simple that our "press corps" is able to handle it. Within our ongoing American drama, the people cast in the role of professional journalists lack even the most basic skills.

It may seem hard to believe that two veteran journalists could have so much trouble quoting something somebody said. That said, we recall the various ways these life forms "quoted" Candidate Gore all through Campaign 2000.

It may be the most significant bungled "quotation" in modern political history. We refer to the claim which defined, transformed and decided that election:

Al Gore said he invented the Internet!

Presented that way, it isn't a quote; it's just an inventive paraphrase of a slightly jumbled statement Gore made in March 1999. At that time, though, we constantly told you this—the power to paraphrase is the power to spin.

During the twenty months of Campaign 2000, the truth of that adage was constantly proven as the mainstream press corps inventively paraphrased statements by Gore. That said, the mainstream press wasn't prepared to restrict itself to inventive paraphrase.

All too often, inventive paraphrases of Gore slipped inside quotation marks, thus becoming flatly bogus "quotations." Here was USA Today's Mimi Hall in June 1999, reporting Gore's baffling problems in the polls. Note her one-word "quotation:"
HALL (6/2/99): Vice President Gore, lagging in early presidential polling and facing growing criticism for his sluggish campaign and stiff style, will formally announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on June 16.

Gore's sudden decision to move up the date—after aides had said for months that he wouldn't announce until fall, then more recently said an announcement would come in July—follows a spate of bad publicity.

[...]

A series of negative news stories unnerved Gore's campaign staff, aides say. President Clinton told The New York Times he had been concerned about the campaign's lackluster start and had urged Gore to loosen up. And big Democratic donors complained publicly about disorganization in the campaign. A couple of Gore gaffes, including his assertion that he "invented" the Internet, didn't help.
Back in March 1999, Gore never said "invent" or "invented" in his slightly jumbled comment about the Net. But so what? By now, the one word Candidate Gore never said had become the one word reporters like Hall were choosing to place inside quotes!

Mimi Hall was an experienced reporter; so are Emery and Holan. The moral to our story is this:

Absent rule by powerful gatekeepers, we the humans simply aren't up to even the most elementary tasks. The actors hired to pose as reporters keep making this fact crystal clear.

We the liberals sit on our ascots, too dumb and compliant to notice. "Look over there," we constantly cry. "Look how dumb Those People are!"

As we've told you for many years, we simply aren't up to this task.

34 comments:

  1. I think Ms. Clinton's failure to say, "Yes, he's qualified," when pressed by Joe Scarborough, was indeed a way of saying that she thought Sanders wasn't qualified to be President. Here's an example from the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

    Former Solicitor General Drew Days (who I had sung with in High School) was testifying against Thomas. As a good liberal, Days disagreed with Thomas politically. A Senator asked Days specifically whether Thomas was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Days didn't duck the question. He acknowledged that Thomas was qualified, but went on to explain why he didn't want someone with Conservative views on the Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should any candidate be maneuvered into an endorsement of his or her opponent in a political race? She doesn't have to say that Sanders is qualified, especially since her campaign was trying to point out that he hadn't thought through his own policy statements. The question was biased because journalists are not supposed to participate in the election process -- they are supposed to report it. By trying to get Clinton to modify her criticisms of Sanders, the journalist benefits Sanders and softens the impact of Clinton's criticisms. That is inappropriate and that's why Clinton shouldn't have been asked to baldly state whether she found Sanders qualified or not. Obviously, she is trying to convince voters that she is the more qualified candidate.

      Delete
    2. Days wasn't running against Thomas for Supreme Court justice, was he?

      Delete
    3. It was a ridiculous asinine attempt by Squinty Eyes Joe Scarborough to bait Hillary Clinton to say something he knew damn well would be inflammatory and set off a royal shitstorm inside the Democratic party and non-stop media pouring gasoline on the fire.

      And make no mistake Joe and his puppet Mika would be the first ones to attack Clinton if she had crossed that line. There was no legitimate objective journalistic purpose to the question.

      The entire point of campaigns is to try to "disqualify" your opponent.

      And Squint Eyes knew exactly what he was doing.

      And true to form following Clinton Rules, the Washington Post reports she said it, whether she actually said it or not.

      Delete
    4. Not quite. A headline in the Washington Post reported that she said it. There was nothing in the story to back that up.

      So Bernie read a sloppy headline and flew off the handle. That makes him blameless, in the eyes of Bob sycophants. It's always the "media's" fault for whatever dumb thing a candidate does.

      And this was extremely dumb of Bernie.

      Delete
    5. The comment by @6:46 clearly indicates Sanders "is not qualified to be President" but clearly "dumb enough to be liberal."

      Delete
    6. Absent rule by absentee gatekeepers it is stunning to think it is hard to believe that anyone can begin enough sentences with clauses to write like Bob.

      Delete
    7. @6:46,

      You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.


      "We aren't trying to judge Clinton or Sanders here. We're assessing the competence of two veteran journalists, including one Pulitzer winner."

      Somerby never said Sanders was "blameless".

      In fact he quite explicitly said that his purpose here was not to judge the candidates but rather the *incompetent or perhaps *corrupt "journalism".

      Pointing out the sloppy lousy journalism does not absolve Sanders of his contribution to this ugly episode.

      *Those are my words, not TDH's.

      Delete
    8. Whatever. How many in a row has HRC dropped now, mm?

      Delete
  2. Yes, Politifact got it wrong. So did Sanders. He didn't quote correctly either. Sanders misquote had a far greater impact. Is someone qualified to be president if he deliberately misquotes an opponent as an excuse to call her unqualified?

    Beyond that, is someone "unqualified" because they made decision that you disagree with? Doesn't that majorly distort the meaning of the word? I find that kind of fuzzy thinking worrisome. It reminds me of the incoherence of Trump. This kind of thing is why some people are talking about Bernie's "meltdown."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon 1:48 -- I think Hillary made a strategic mistake. She should have graciously said that Sanders' long experience in the Senate qualified him to be President. What would that have cost her? She has the nomination wrapped up. And, in the unlikely possibility that she's indicted and Sanders is the nominee, her affirmation of his qualifications could only have helped the Democrat win.

    As it is, she came across as less than gracious and with a fellow Dem having questioned her qualifications.

    BTW as a voter, I don't care so much whether Sanders was entitled to question Hillary's qualifications as whether or not she's truly qualified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women, in business or in politics, don't get ahead by being gracious. They get taken advantage of when they "play nice" and their opponents feel no such impulse. Clinton wants to win. If her voters all assume she has the nomination wrapped up and they do not come to the polls during the primary, Sanders may have grounds to disrupt the convention (as Cruz is trying to do) or to woo super delegates, as he has been doing already.

      Clinton will not be indicted for anything. That is a conservative pipe dream.

      I think it is Sanders who wound up looking bad -- that's why he backtracked.

      Being qualified means meeting the constitutional requirements to run, filing the proper papers to get on the ballot and doing the administrative work (filing fund-raising financial returns etc.), nothing more. The voters decide whether a person is qualified to be president or not. That's why that was such a stupid question and why Clinton cannot answer it positively without undermining her criticisms of Sanders.

      Her affirmation of his qualifications makes her look weak and stupid. Who criticizes an opponent in one breath but says "Of course he is qualified" in the next?

      What it costs her is that every man is presumed to be qualified while very woman is not. When she gives away her own superior experience to Sanders by affirming his qualifications, she only undermines her own position. It was wrong to ask her to do that.

      Women "get" this. Men don't.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you AnonymousApril 9, 2016 at 3:55 PM that Hillary Clinton won't be indicted. But, I'm curious as to why you're so sure. We know that she had secret messages on her private server. We know that "There are dozens of FBI agents involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation" (as reported by the Washington Post.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/28/there-are-147-fbi-agents-involved-in-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

      My reason for thinking she won't be indicted is that the fix is in. I'd like to know your reason for being so sure.

      Delete
    3. 1. She didn't send any messages -- she received them. They were only classified years later, retroactively, by folks with an axe to grind. No interests have been compromised -- this has arisen because of conservative FOIA lawsuits over trivial issues. She was the person who decided what was classified and what was not, at the time. She did what several other Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State and cabinet officers did in handling her emails. She broke no rules, disobeyed no laws, set no new precedents in what she did. Rules were changed after she left office.
      2. The State Dept, the FBI, and others in the intelligence community have not accused her of any wrongdoing and have in fact stated that she did nothing wrong.
      3. Clinton has stated that she has not been interviewed by the FBI, which supports the idea that she is not a target of their investigation. Calling it the "Hillary Clinton email investigation" reveals the political motives involved.
      4. It would be an outrageous breech of procedure for the FBI or any other intelligence agency or the judicial to interfere with an ongoing presidential election by indicting a candidate. No one would stand for it because it is a threat to our democracy (regardless of who is running).
      5. She has been opposed by so many entrenched interests, from the media to the mainstream Democratic party to conservatives that it is hard to imagine who (with the power to do it) would fix anything on her behalf. If the fix were "in" she wouldn't be struggling as she is to win the nomination.
      6. She has done nothing wrong. I continue to believe that innocent people are not indicted for political purposes in our country. When that occurs this will have become a banana republic and you can write to me in Canada or Mexico.

      Delete
    4. "She should have graciously said that Sanders' long experience in the Senate qualified him to be President."

      And she could have graciously said the very next day, "I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump and Ted Cruz any time."

      Oh, wait a minute. She did say that.

      Delete
  4. Ummm ... politifact took out "quote unquote" and PUT IN QUOTATION MARKS. It went from "quote unquote, not qualified to be president" to "'not qualified to be president.'"

    I have no idea what they teach kids about quotation marks these days but Bob is old enough to know that when you quote someone quoting someone else, that second quotation goes in single quotation marks. Of course, when speaking, quotation marks aren't clear, and so one says "quote unquote" or "and I quote" or similar.

    So politifact took out the awkward "quote unquote" and put in the quotation marks that Sanders was putting in by saying "quote unquote."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Putting in the quotation marks shows that Sanders was quoting but it doesn't show that Sanders emphasized that he was quoting by stating explicitly "quote unquote." The quote unquote is not equivalent to quote marks in that situation because one has a different slightly meaning than the other. It is more than the distinction between speaking and writing. Saying quote unquote emphasizes the quote in a way that quotation marks (in print) do not.

      Somerby is correct that Politifact should not have done something that changed the meaning. In this case, they weakened the statement Sanders made, his accusation that Clinton had specifically called him unqualified (quote unquote), not merely implied that he was unqualified.

      Quote unquote should have been left in and enclosed in quote marks because those are the words Sanders said. He didn't say "not qualified to be president," he said "...quote unquote not qualified to be president."

      This matters, largely because Clinton never said what he attributed to her, with or without quote marks. When he indicates he knowingly misquoted her, by saying "quote unquote" it makes his gaffe more egregious than if he loosely quoted her but got the words wrong (e.g., Clinton said I like to eat eggs for breakfast, as opposed to Clinton said, quote unquote, I like to eat eggs for breakfast). The latter is stronger and what Sanders did was the strong version, not the weak one.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 9, 2016 at 7:48 PM, you just explained the obvious. If one were to ask Politifact why they did what they did they would almost certainly give the same weak and off-base response you just gave. Of course, when you quote someone who is quoting someone else it is proper to put the 2nd person's quotes in single quotation marks if you know for a fact it is an actual quote. It wasn't. And when you do quote somebody you are absolutely and unconditionally obligated to use the exact words he or she used. Journalistic ethics standards dictate that you can NOT modify a quote whether it was awkward or not. Words matter. The power of quoting someone verbatim is it allows the reader to see exactly what was said and make their own value judgments based on those words. The Politifact writers made their own value judgment before the fact when they decided to omit those words. If Politifact felt obligated to omit the words "quote unquote" they had a journalistic obligation to indicate they were intentionally leaving words out by using an ellipsis. As Bob noted, "By saying "quote unquote," Sanders heightened the sense that he was quoting Candidate Clinton, which he actually wasn't doing." By using the single quotes there is no way for a neutral reader to know that Politfact was fixing an awkward quote, as you put it, and it is certainly not their job to fix awkward quotes anyway because you can't do so without making value judgments that should be left up to the reader. When you do so anyway it almost impossible to conclude that there is no other reason to do so other than you have an agenda of some sort. In this case, it certainly seems as if Politifact is trying very hard to soften Bernie's mistake/lie (it has to be one or the other) even with their conclusion that Bernie's statement was mostly false. There's no getting around the fact Politifact tried to soften the effect of Bernie's statement.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, folks. BERNIE put the quote marks in there when he said "quote unquote."

      He quite explicitly accused Clinton of saying something she not only did not say, but refused to say when asked three times.

      When Sanders said "quote unquote" he was telling his audience that Clinton said those words -- verbatim.

      How typical of Somerby to blame "the media" for something the candidate did.

      My, what a horrible sin to replace "quote unquote" with the actual quotation marks.

      Delete
    4. Exactly, Anon 6:32. It was Bernie who said "quote/unquote" aloud, repeating something Hillary never said. I don't think it reflects well on Bernie Sanders that he relies on misleading headlines to articles he doesn't bother to read. Hillary never said he was unqualified, a headline inaccurately did. Bernie went testy and nuclear without knowing what the f-ck he was talking about. Hardly a ringing endorsement for him as President, alongside his many, many other blind spots, like foreign policy. A subject he shows no interest in or particular knowledge of. Putin would eat Bernie Sanders alive and tie him up in knots. And it would be embarrassing for the US.

      I don't care if anyone here in this extremely tiny forum of maybe eight people talking at Somerby's place disagrees: Hillary will stand nose to nose with the likes of Putin. She is tough, and battle tested, and will kick ass if need be. I like Bernie a lot. But he's an elderly cranky guy whose promises I don't believe in and whose lack of opinions on foreign policy are staggering in their absence, from someone who wants to be President. Bernie is unbelievably provincial, no, he is not someone I consider formidable enough to go toe to toe with Putin, or China as they seize more territory in Pacific seas. Our rumpled elderly professor from Vermont will not cut it in our strange tumultuous world. Bernie is incredibly f-cking provincial, he should be running for mayor of a small New England town. No, I don't see him facing down Putin if Putin decides to grab more territory and provoke the West. Bernie seems weak and old and someone with no idea of foreign policy. Which is an important part of being President. I don't know why no one told him that.

      Delete
    5. Well of course you don't care what the other seven of us think. Otherwise complete sentences.

      Delete
    6. Uh, Somerby's blaming the media for *removing* the quote/unquote.

      Delete
    7. Who do we blame for the asteriks Bob should have used?

      Delete
  5. We humans aren't up for simple tasks. We humans don't deserve Bob. But then we may be prehuman droogs. Or chimps. Or baboons. Or from another planet like Doris K. Goodwin. Or understand when Einstein is made easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or witty ripostes in comment boxes.

      Delete

  6. Hi friends! am christina borris i want to share a live testimony on how Dr Ewan was able to bring my husband back to me, myself and my husband were on a serious breakup, even before then we were always quarreling fighting and doing different ungodly My husband packed his things out of the house and we had to live in different area, despite all this i was looking for a way to re_unite with my husband, not until i met Dr Ewan the great spell caster who was able to bring my husband back home, and he assured me that my husband will come back to me within 48hours hours after he has finish the preparation of the love am very glade today to tell the world that Doctor Ewan is truly a man of his word because my husband came back to me and we settled our differences my family is back again and we are happy living fine and healthy, with Dr Ewan all my dream came through in re_uniting my marriage, friends in case you need the help of Dr Ewan kindly mail him on( covenantsolutiontemple@gmail.com) or call him on +2347052958531, Sir i will forever recommend you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyone who says "quote unquote" is clearly unqualified to be President. He should say "quote" then the exact words he's quoting then "unquote". A "quote unquote" guy isn't qualified for any position higher than actuary. And you can quote me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shouldn't you have said "any position higher than the average represented by the profession of actuary"? Even an actuary would not have been as specific as you were.

      Delete
  9. How to be a human up to the task: Write like Bob!

    Bob, quoted and unquoted, suggesting Jeff Zeleny may have started all of this:

    {"By some accounts, the flap began with this attempt at news reporting by CNN's Jeff Zeleny. The report displays extremely weak journalistic skills. (File under: "provocative paraphrase in the absence of direct quotation.")"}

    Here are the words Zeleny used to earn the blame "by some accounts"

    {"The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News editorial board interview of Sanders."}

    This silly unfortunate flap could have been avoided with strong journalism skills Zeleny could have displayed by using one or two carefully chosen Helpful Howler words or phrases.

    Zeleny Rewrite 1:

    "The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, suggested that Sanders is unqualified,by sending a full transcript...."

    Zeleny Rewrite 2:

    "The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, implied that questions of Sanders well being could be asked sending a full transcript...

    Of course by some accounts Bob's own assertion that the flap began with Zeleny "by some accounts" begs the big question; by whose account, Bob? Bob didn't tell. Bob doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zeleny is often called "The Strawman" by those familiar with Bob Somerby using him as the excuse for Bernie Sanders throwing what is often known as the "Get Off my Lawn" tantrum we so often see from experienced white guys these days who haven't been put out to pasture
      by owners trying to save money.

      Delete
  10. Glad Bob found a way to work Gore into this. The lesson cannot be taught too many times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...it's just an inventive paraphrase of a slightly jumbled statement Gore made in March 1999. At that time, though, we constantly told you this—the power to paraphrase is the power to spin."

      Sadly, "At that time" Bob didn't tell us quote unquote "the power to paraphrase is the power to spin. He did not tell us that until December, 1999." Then he told us twice, one of which was a teaser, which, given the way Bob repeats things, is hardly "contsntly."

      Bob could have easily been accurate here. We do not know why he chose not to be.

      Delete
  11. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete