Possible alien life-form watch: "Josh Marshall" tries to explain Trump's attacks!

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016

What have they done with Josh Marshall:
Down through the years, we've occasionally asked a fairly obvious question.

Anyone who watches the press corps would end up asking this obvious question. Here's the question to which we refer:

Are the life forms known as "mainstream pundits" actually human? Is it possible that we're surrounded by some form of alien beings? Is it even possible that we're here all alone?

Eventually, everyone who follows the press corps ends up asking such questions. Their incompetence is so overwhelming that the question asks itself.

Today's post by "Josh Marshall" raises this question again. "Marshall" is trying to discuss Candidate Trump's new wave of attacks against Candidate Clinton. That said, "Marshall" shows no sign of understanding what Trump has been alleging.

Could an actual human be this clueless? We don't know how to answer your perfectly obvious question:
MARSHALL (5/24/16): As I mentioned yesterday, the three big networks and in fact the major national dailies continue to blast out Donald Trump's charges that Hillary Clinton's husband raped or assaulted other women. And yet, CNN, MSNBC, let alone Fox refuse to discuss that at least twice Trump has himself been accused of sexual assault or rape in sworn statements—once by his wife and again a decade ago in a lawsuit brought by a woman named Jill Harth. But in discussing how to approach the issue of how to approach Trump's history of accusations of sexual violence or harassment the question came up, what exactly is Trump trying to accomplish by using Bill Clinton's past against Hillary?


The simple fact is that there's no evidence or logic to the idea that anyone who doesn't already hate Hillary Clinton with a passion will believe that she is culpable in some way for her husband's acts of infidelity against her. Even if you think Clinton is not simply a chronic philanderer but some sort of sexual abuser—a claim for which there is really little or no evidence, that's Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton. Holding her responsible for her husband's acts, for which she is if anything a victim, is as logically ridiculous as it is morally sickening.

You don't have to take my word for it. Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton enjoyed a wave of renewed popularity in the wake of the Lewinsky/Impeachment scandal. It was no trivial part of how she was able to win her first Senate run in New York. You may say this was sympathy for what she went through or admiration for the stoicism with which she persevered through the crisis. But they all come back to the obvious point: people don't blame a guy's wife for his infidelities.
"Josh Marshall" continues from there. That said, can that analysis be the work of an actual human?

As you probably know, this is why we ask:

"Josh Marshall" closes that passage with a perfectly sensible point. As a general matter, people don't "blame a guy's wife for his infidelities," just as "Josh Marshall" says.

That said, Candidate Trump isn't suggesting that voters should do that. He also isn't doing this:

He isn't saying that Candidate Clinton "is culpable in some way for her husband's acts of infidelity against her." He isn't "holding her responsible for her husband's acts, for which she is if anything a victim." He isn't trying to "use Bill Clinton's past against Hillary."

Candidate Trump hasn't been saying and doing those things. As you know, he has been saying and doing something quite different.

Like many other major pundits, "Josh Marshall" still doesn't seem to know this. For this reason, sensible people are forced to wonder if "Marshall" is actually human.

Not too long ago, everyone believed that there was an actual person named Josh Marshall. He was believed to be a bright person who had received a doctorate in American history at Brown.

At some point, his one-person blog was transformed into a dumbed-down news org for liberals—a dumbed-down entity designed to make money while making us liberals feel tribally superior. By now, "Josh Marshall" can't even describe something as basic as Candidate Trump's recent string of allegations against Candidate Clinton.

Candidate Trump isn't saying that voters should blame Hillary Clinton for Bill Clinton's (alleged) infidelities (and alleged violent acts). By now, every human being knows this, including wide swaths of the electorate.

Why doesn't "Josh Marshall" know those things? Second question:

Can we liberals hope to prevail despite work of this type from the money-grubbing stars at the top of our pile?

More fuel for the fire: According to the leading authority, Marshall "started Talking Points Memo during the 2000 Florida election recount."

Exactly! Just too late to be of assistance or help!


  1. Down through the years I asked the same question about public school teachers after I reached the third grade.

  2. Would be somewhat appropriate if you are disparaging Marshall's interpretation of what Trump was trying to do with the Bill dalience ads, perhaps even suggest what you think Trump was actually attempting by placing the ads.

  3. Trump is saying Hillary Clinton enabled her husband's behavior and intimidated the alleged victims, how is this so different from saying she is culpable in some way?

    1. Somerby is saying that Marshall isn't refuting what Trump said but is mistakenly saying Trump is attacking Bill Clinton instead of Hillary.

    2. Somerby is saying dead Iraqi's are staring up from their graves at Josh Marshall who is too busy palying "slip n slide" on our melting culture to see them.

  4. I really enjoy reading this blog, but this is batty. Yes, Trump IS trying to tie her to Bill Clinton's misconduct with women. This post is truly incoherent, and not only doesn't try to contradict what Josh Marshall wrote, but weirdly and personally attacks him. Is he an alien? Shall I throw in he started blogging in 2000, as if that is so important Bob Somerby can't even be bothered to explain this sloppy mess of a post that makes no discernible point? Is someone drinking heavily at the keyboard? (I am, for what it's worth.)

  5. Marshall started a political blog in 2000 and 16 years later, turned it into quite a news site, with paid employees and everything.

    Somerby started a political blog in 1998 and 18 years later, turned it into an old coot vanity blog, railing about those damned kids.

  6. My first visit to this site in many months. Back in the day,"Somerby" spent an inordinate amount of time concern trolling liberals, and that hasn't changed. "Somerby" needs an editor. The verbiage/content ratio is excessive, almost unreadable. Not likely to return any time soon.

  7. Trump is saying HC silenced and intimidated BC's accusers. This line of argument is likely to depress turnout among young feminists (Bernie voters). Is this really too complicated for the commenters here/"Josh Marshall" to understand?

    1. "Is this really too complicated for the commenters here"

      For some, yes.

      Many others merely pretend not to understand.

    2. Young feminists, Bernie fan variety, are only likely to be swayed with arguments from Donald Trump in the minds of people impressed enough with Somerby to defend his ranting repetition.