THOSE NARROW MARGINS: A moral and intellectual illness!


Part 4—And it belongs to Us:
The person who wrote today's letter is only one person, of course.

As with all persons, her judgment is imperfect and her wisdom is limited. "Not people die but worlds die in them/Whom we knew as faulty, the earth's creatures..."

That said, the person in question wrote a letter which appears in today's New York Times. Should the Times have published her letter? We're not sure how to answer that.

That said, the letter may be instructive for those who want to understand us liberals better. Should the Times have published the letter? Here's what the letter says:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (11/23/16): My nearly 99-year-old father has voted for a Republican president every election since he could vote. Despite our differing politics, I have always loved and admired my father. With this election, however, I feel he has crossed a personal line that I’m unsure I can forgive.

I believe that by voting for Donald Trump, he has rejected my core family values
of inclusiveness and civic responsibilities. At last year’s Thanksgiving table, we talked about the plight of the Syrian refugees; this year I fear that it will be reduced to the weather—without the part about climate change.

J— M—
New York
Whom we knew as faulty, the earth's creatures.

Based upon our extensive research, the writer seems to be a legal recruiter, a position she had held for over 25 years. She says she "has lived in Greenwich Village for over half of my life–a neighborhood that reflects my interests in culture, politics and diversity."

Based upon her date of graduation from college, she seems to be a bit less than 60 years old.

Her father is 98 years old—apparently, 98 and a half! This time, though, he's gone too far. She's not sure she can forgive her father for this thing he has done.

Should the Times have published that letter? We don't know how to answer that. Does the letter say anything about Us? We wonder if maybe it might.

How did we liberals manage to lose this year's presidential election? How did we manage to lose to a man who is visibly disordered in an array of ways?

This election was lost by narrow margins in three decisive states. When elections are lost by narrow margins, you can explain the defeat a million different ways.

In this recent post, Kevin Drum stressed three major reasons for Clinton's defeat. According to Drum, we lost the election because Bernie Sanders turned millenials against Clinton. We lost the election because Comey the God staged a three-act intervention in the ongoing campaign.

Finally, we lost the election because working-class voters deserted Clinton in droves. According to Drum, the evidence "strongly suggests that the working class was primarily motivated by economic concerns and only secondarily by racial issues. This is the opposite of what I thought during the campaign, but I was wrong."

Drum goes on to cite other reasons for the loss. But those are his three major reasons.

We don't know why Drum has flipped regarding the motives of working-class voters. We don't know why the evidence he cites convinced him to change his mind about the motives of those voters, who number in the tens of millions.

We see nothing in the evidence Drum cites which lets us assess the question of motive. Incomparably, though, we'll stress that one key point:

We're discussing millions of voters!

In the early years of TV, there were "eight million stories in the naked city." We'll suggest there are also many stories among the nation's Trump voters, whose number now stands at 62,206,395 and counting.

(Clinton's popular vote now stands at 64,223,958. As such, Candidate Trump's victory margin now exceeds minus two million!)

Are there millions of stories among Trump voters, who we know as faulty? Almost surely, there are—until We, the all-knowing losers, start explaining Their votes.

When we liberals explain their votes, one explanation tends to conquer all. In our view, our instinct to behave this way is probably one of the ways we managed to lose this election.

Why did people vote for Trump? We'll assume there are many reasons. That said, when journalists speak to Trump voters, one complaint often emerges.

During the campaign, The New Yorker sent Larissa McFarquhar to speak to Trump supporters in West Virginia. "The perception that people in West Virginia are voting for Trump because they are racist or ignorant is significant," McFarquhar wrote, "since it’s one of the reasons they’re voting for Trump in the first place."

According to a local professor, Trump voters in West Virginia "envision people in New York City making fun of them and calling them stupid. Every time you leave the state, you get it—someone will say, Oh, you’re from West Virginia, do you date your cousin? Wow, you have shoes, wow you have teeth, are you sure you’re from West Virginia?"

Elsewhere, McFarquhar fleshes out the idea that Trump voters in West Virginia resent being dismissed as racists—an insinuation she says they were hearing from Candidate Clinton on down.

That's part of what McFarquhar says she heard in West Virginia. Years earlier, Berkeley professor Arlie Russell Hochschild had gone to the wilds of Louisiana to study the outlook of Tea Party members.

Rachel Maddow had spent two weeks bombarding them with teabagger jokes. This is part of what Hochschild says she heard from one of those people:

"She explained that, actually, she saw Rush Limbaugh defending her against this hail of epithets that came, she thought, from Liberal Land. You know, that she was seen as fat and homophobic, and sexist and racist. And she saw him as defending her from that."

Are Trump voters sexist and racist? How sexist and racist are they? In the wake of our defeat by those painfully narrow margins, the New York Times sent Nikole Hannah-Jones to her native Iowa to investigate the thinking of Trump voters there.

Hannah-Jones focused on Trump voters who voted for Obama at least one time. She zeroed in on one such voter, helping us discover the obvious—that she is secretly racist.

In fairness, no one can challenge Hannah-Jones' skill at proving a preapproved verdict. After she spoke with that one Trump voter, she reported this:
HANNAH-JONES (11/20/16): When Obama was elected, she hoped he would “bridge race relations, to help people in the middle of Iowa” see that black people “are decent hardworking people who want the same things that we want.” She said people in rural Iowa often don’t know many black people and unfairly stereotype them. But Obama really turned her off when after a vigilante killed a black teenager named Trayvon Martin, he said the boy could have been his son. She felt as if Obama was choosing a side in the racial divide, stirring up tensions. And then came the death of Michael Brown, shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Mo.

“I’m not saying that the struggles of black Americans aren’t real,” Douglas told me, “but I feel like the Michael Brown incident was violence against the police officer.”

The Black Lives Matter movement bothered her. Even as an Ivy League-educated, glamorous black couple lived in the White House, masses of black people were blocking highways and staging die-ins in malls, claiming that black people had it so hard. When she voiced her discomfort with that movement, she said, or pointed out that she disagreed with Obama’s policies, some of her more liberal friends on Facebook would call her racist. So, she shut her mouth—and simmered.
We liberals told her she was racist. This complaint is widely heard when Trump supporters speak.

Is that Trump voter racist? Remember, she's just one person out of the 800,942 Iowans who voted for Candidate Trump. At least in theory, we can't learn about all the others just from reinventing her values in a way we like.

It may also seem strange to think that the person who voted for Obama is being diagnosed as a racist. But that's the insinuation which emerges from the omniscient Hannah-Jones, who shows no sign of understanding how the Martin and Brown cases looked to many people who don't live inside Our Own tents.

(Among other things, it looked like we were inventing facts about these cases, as we plainly did. In the face of morality as impressive as ours, the truth must sometimes give way.)

Why did people vote for Trump? It's hard to answer such a sweeping question. We can, however, tell you this:

Over here, within our own tribe, we love to denounce The Others. It's a moral and intellectual illness of an egregious kind.

It also constitutes an unforced political error. It may explain how we lost an election, by narrow margins, to a deeply disordered man.

What's the nature of our moral/intellectual illness? We see it played out when Hannah-Jones crams that one voter's remarks into our preapproved story-line.

We also see it here, when Charlie Pierce says "we finally come to the nub of it" in the published remarks of one working man in eastern Ohio or western Pennsylvania.

This man's published remarks concern racial banter where he works. They alerted Pierce's racial sensors in a way he doesn't attempt to explain. We have no idea what transpires at that man's work site. Neither does Brother Pierce.

By now, it's obvious to everyone else, even if it isn't yet plain to us. When We talk to Those People, we always seem to find a way to uncover The Story We Like.

We love to loathe and denounce The Others, in a way which extends from prehistory. You can see (and hear) the same instinct at play in yesterday's piece by Michelle Goldberg at Slate.

Goldberg says she spoke to "women who voted for Trump" on a major radio program. Her statement is technically accurate. She quickly sees through one caller's deceptive remarks:
GOLDBERG (11/26/16): The Friday after the election, I was a guest on the Brian Lehrer radio show, speaking to women who voted for Trump. One caller, a mother from Connecticut who’d worked in automotive and construction management, insisted: “Most women that have to deal with households vote for the economy. It’s economic issues that drive us.” But when pressed on Trump’s economic policies, she shifted to a denunciation of oversensitive college students who needed time off to process the election results. “It grieves me that these college students are all being given passes out of classes for an election,” she said, the heat in her voice rising.
This woman claimed that many women "vote for the economy." But uh-oh! "When pressed on Trump’s economic policies, she shifted to a denunciation of oversensitive college students."

Goldberg omits this woman's backstory, which involves the fact that her daughter died of a drug overdose last year. She omits the way she baited this woman about her dumbness before receiving this prickly response in reply.

That said, this is part of our standard play, in which we catch Those People misrepresenting their actual views and motives. Goldberg catches this woman seeming to say that she voted for Trump because of the economy. Goldberg was skillfully able to see that this isn't the case.

In fact, Goldberg spoke to exactly two "women who voted for Trump" on that Lehrer radio program. Fascinated by her essay, we clicked the link she provided and listened to her 38-minute segment, in which she and a second liberal guest displayed our tribe's appalling inability to listen to people who fail to say the things we want to hear.

The first Trump voter on that program presented a striking case. Identified at Patricia from Bayonne, she turned out to be a Peruvian immigrant speaking accented English.

This woman said she voted for Trump because he said he'd create lots of jobs. Citing her sister's nightmarism experience, she also said she voted for Trump because Obamacare is a god-awful mess.

Fascinating! Here was a person who might start to flesh out the basis on which 29 percent of Hispanic voters voted for Trump. It also seemed fairly clear that this voter was a "regular person," not a wealthy elite, the kind of person a liberal pundit ought to know how to respect.

Goldberg and her fellow pundit showed little ability to listen to this woman's explanation of her vote. Rather than draw out this voter's story, they quickly began making it clear that this woman was wrong in her assessments.

Lehrer made his disapproval fairly clear as well. The interview ended after the woman said this:
PATRICIA FROM BAYONNE (11/11/16): You know what? And I want to say something....Poor people, they almost cry because this Obamacare. They have to pay the penalty, which is now gonna be, the minimum penalty, gonna be like $650, like that, if they don't have insurance.
At that point, the interview ended. Lehrer moved to his second (and last) female Trump voter, whose story Goldberg finessed in her piece for Slate.

We'll suggest that you listen to the three liberals as they speak with Patricia from Bayonne. (Her sister had to return to Peru for an operation, Obamacare is so bad.) Her phone call starts around 14:30 of the Lehrer audiotape. It continues for a bit less than four minutes.

"Oh boy," Lehrer says at one point, as his caller's pitiful cluelessness becomes clear to his superior mind. When he throws to Goldberg, her own disapproval is quickly made apparent.

The caller's views and experience are disrespected. Our own tribe's heavily scripted wisdom must, and will, prevail.

To state the obvious, we can't learn why 62 million people people voted for Trump by speaking with two such women. That said, we were surprised by the arrogance we heard from the liberals on that audiotape. Meanwhile, Goldberg recorded that same old complaint in her piece for Slate, though she sanitized things a bit:
GOLDBERG: Over the course of the presidential campaign, I attended Trump rallies in the Northeast, the South, and the Midwest. Among the dozens of Trump supporters I interviewed, not one mentioned NAFTA, but many—perhaps most—complained about political correctness. Again and again, people told me how much they resented not being able to speak their minds, though none of them wanted to articulate what exactly they were holding in. They said they hated being shamed on social media, though they usually didn’t want to say what they had been shamed for.

The spasms of unchained bigotry we’ve seen post-election suggest that some Trump supporters were simply longing to howl NIGGER! KIKE! CUNT! FAGGOT! Among those I spoke to, however, some felt bullied for violating more arcane speech rules they neither assented to nor understood...
"Some [Trump voters] felt bullied for violating more arcane speech rules they neither assented to nor understood?" Delicately, Goldberg is saying that these voters didn't like being called racists.

Goldberg is delicate as she sanitizes this familiar complaint. Earlier, though, she's happy to list THE CAPITALIZED WORDS those other Trump voters longed to howl into the night.

She also sends dog whistles to us liberals when she says the Trump supporters with whom she spoke didn't want to say what they had been "shamed" for. In comments, us droogs knew how to interpret this statement:

They didn't want to explain what they'd said because what they said was racist!

Our liberal tribe is in the grip of a moral/intellectual illness. It leaves us barely able to reason, eager to call people names.

We interview a handful of voters, then let the few represent the all. No matter what those voters say, we find a way to discover the evil we seek.

This leaves us behaving like tribalists from a prehistoric age. Did it leave us losing three decisive states by very narrow margins?

We love to call The Others names. It often seems like our only skill, our only political pleasure. It sinks us in a well of deeply unintelligent conduct. Everyone else can see what we do. Our illness is invisible only to Us.

Donald J. Trump is going to change the history of our nation and world. Considering those narrow victory margins, does our own ugly, avoidable conduct explain how we got to this place?

In coming weeks: Extensive discussion of Drum's question: How did we lose to that guy?

Another poet is wrong: "No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko foolishly said.

He never heard three liberals speak with Patricia from Peru!


  1. What evidence is there that people voted for Trump because Charlie Pierce or Rachel Maddow are mean? I'd say none.

    Obviously there are as many reasons as people, but my vote is that the problem is that liberals spend more time attacking each other than opponents. Whatever conservatives believe, they end up banding together. That's why what is conservative one day (Iraq war, cap-and-trade, mandates for insurance) becomes hates the next.

    Liberals are so set on being pure that can never coalesce around anybody because everybody has some flaw. That's the problem in my view, and web sites like this will always perpetuate the problem.

    1. Few Trump voters read Charlie Pierce or Rachel Maddow. However, many Trump voters watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and read conservative blogs, all of which repeatedly propagandize every item, large or small, that can be used to argue that the smug liberal elites are looking down at real Americans. It's a very successful tactic, as revealed in this most recent election.

    2. We respond to vocal MINORITY and project their voices onto Bush voters, McCain/Romney voters, it just sucks because "we" lost. You both are right because we are talking about so many people and so many factors but we need to avoid the self inflicted wounds... we laugh at the people that shoot themselves with guns. At least THEY are their only immediate victim... Plaxico Burris.

    3. Hello, I am Theresa Williams After being in relationship with Anderson for years, he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that never believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I mailed the spell caster, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem. email: you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or any other Case.

      1) Love Spells
      2) Lost Love Spells
      3) Divorce Spells
      4) Marriage Spells
      5) Binding Spell.
      6) Breakup Spells
      7) Banish a past Lover
      8.) You want to be promoted in your office
      9) want to satisfy your lover
      Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution

    4. I am one of those people who said, “I’ll never call a psychic or a magician or whatever” to help me with my problems – least of all my love problems, but I reached the point where I knew I needed some guidance, and I’m so glad I found this man called dr.ajeghe. When I nearly lost David in one of our stupid,fights (he broke up with me), I thought I had lost everything.i cry all day and think that he will never come back to me again.i read so many testimony about Dr. ajeghe love spell,how he help to bring back ex lover back.I quickly email him.and also get back my husband with his love spell. And when I was at my most desperate,he didn’t take advantage of me. You performed a very good service for a person in true need. I don’t know how you did it, or how this magic works, but all I know is, IT WORKS!! David my husband and I are happily back together, and I’ll always be grateful to dr.ajeghe email him for any kinds of help is very capable and reliable for help or WhatsApp him +2349069171173

  2. Bob, conservative media has for decades turned the word "liberal" into a curse. You can watch or listen to conservative/Christian media, and it's a parade of hysterical bile directed at liberals. Why does that work for them, but when milquetoast liberals criticize conservatives, that is the death knell for liberalism?

    I don't even watch Maddow or read pierce, but I find your premise rather faulty in real-world application. They don't hate us because of they have heard liberals and find them insulting, they hate liberals because they get fed a non-stop litany of lies about liberal bogeymen. They don't watch MSNBC (nobody does), they don't read Esquire or the New Yorker.

    I go to church at Easter and the pastor says, "Jesus died so people wouldn't rely on the government," or democrats want to make celebrating Christmas illegal. Or that they'll have to hire gays because of anti-discrimination legislation. The list goes on.

    That's why they hate us, not because some smug person they don't know and will never see or read says mean things about them.

    1. I agree with this. I am tired of being lectured about how we should treat people on the right.

      I have friends who are Trump voters. I am always nice to them because they are my friends. I don't call them any names. I do consider them bigoted because they can tolerate the things Trump says and does. I fully believe that someone who cares about others cannot vote for someone like Trump, so I think it is fair to conclude that my friends do not care much about diversity issues, sexism, or climate change, or any of the other things Trump is bad on. They just don't care about this stuff and I do. But I don't say anything mean to them about it.

      If you support Trump, you don't get to disassociate yourself from the ugly parts of the man. You own that stuff, along with whatever you like about him. If that upsets you, that is on you, not on us for pointing out the implications of supporting the guy.

      I am so sick of Somerby preaching at us here.

    2. Right, OR. The media is full of the lies that appear on social media while ignoring the beastly gulag of: It's everywhere

    3. That's a rational argument that you make. But here's the thing - there are 2 ways, it appears, to respond to what you correctly write are the unfair and ugly tactics of conservative media. You're advocating for, essentially, fighting fire with fire, and using their successful tactics against them. I don't want to speak for Bob, but it occurs to me that if we do that all we end up with is a more polarized electorate, each with their own realities, arguing at each other. That seems like a recipe for a civil war - not metaphorically, either.

      Bob is saying that we should find another way. I think his opinion (with which I agree) is that a democracy can function only with a well-informed electorate. Maddow and others on MSNBC aren't informing the electorate any more than Hannity and Limbaugh are. That's why Bob focuses this blog on the media, which should be the ones informing the electorate and calling-out the propaganda.

      But it doesn't, and that allows the conservative propagandists (who have a 30-year head start, and an easier argument because their position is a simple "government sucks") to sway large parts of the population. Somehow we need to change that dynamic.

      As I write this, I'm thinking that there may not be a way to change things, particularly in the atomized world of modern media. But if we can't change things, we're really not going to make it as a country.

    4. "I fully believe that someone who cares about others cannot vote for someone like Trump."

      I fully believe someone who cares about others cannot vote for someone like Hillary. I fully believe I would win the argument if we presented our evidence of our respective beliefs, and that it wouldn't even be close.

      I fully believe your views result from ignorance or emotional reactions including unwarranted fears, assuming you are not of very limited intelligence. Now what?

    5. "If you support Trump, you don't get to disassociate yourself from the ugly parts of the man."

      Yes you do. Those parts could end up entirely irrelevant to how he governs and performs in office and most Trump voters think it's likely.

  3. "How did we liberals manage to lose this year's presidential election? "

    Too few voted.

    Trump squeaked by:

    Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it's fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 100,000 votes out of than 120 million ballots cast. According to the latest tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.1 percentage points (68,236 votes), Wisconsin by 0.9 points (27,257 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (11,837 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260.

    1. There is concern among computer scientists that voting machines may have been hacked in those three states. They, and election lawyers, are urging Clinton to request an audit and/or recount. It may be that Clinton didn't actually lose those states but that they were stolen via hacking.

  4. I don't go to church, I read the New York Times, I am a Liberal, and have been turned off by the moral and intellectual illness (highly contagious in the era of social media) of a crowd that would "understand why" a woman would cut ties with a father she loved and admired over Trump. This is what Marxism wants and is. It's repulsive and it defines the regressive left now, not just some fringe of it.

    1. She didn't say she was cutting ties with him. She said she could not "forgive" him. She didn't even say she no longer loved him. She said his act was beyond the pale.

      Many people can separate behavior from the human being engaging in it -- hate the deed but love the person.

      Few people hold a 98 year old accountable for his or her decisions and actions. I do not see any indication this person will punish her father in any way.

  5. The lady in the Village may be actually depressed about what's to come and is wrongly misdirecting her anger toward her father.

    In perhaps less than a year the supreme court will swing back to the GOP for another generation or two. Then will will have McConnell, Ryan, Roberts and Trump changing everything.

  6. West Virgina voted against Clinton because she told them, to their faces, that coal was not coming back. She also told them she would help them find other jobs, but they didn't listen to that part. Trump told them he would revive coal. It is as simple as that.

    Working class people "abandoned" Clinton because they are no longer unionized. The unions used to be the party machine and got out the vote. When people no longer belong to a union, the GOTV operation is weakened. They didn't necessarily vote for Trump -- a lot of them just didn't vote at all.

    This whining about political correctness is a complaint about having to defend their position of support for a ludicrous candidate. They are defensive because they know they shouldn't be supporting someone like Trump. He is indefensible.

    I find it ludicrous that someone can afford a plane ticket to Peru but not $650 penalty for having no health insurance. There is nothing in Obamacare that permits someone to get health care in another country in preference to our own health care system because it is expected that people will live and work here. Paying the monthly health care costs (with subsidy) will be cheaper than going to Peru every time you are sick. "Dismissing" her complaint seems appropriate to me. She is voting for Trump because he promises to change someone she personally doesn't like for reasons specific to her situation (right or wrong) and she is not voting based on who would be best for the country. I think she doesn't understand the responsibility of voting any more than she understands how Obamacare actually works. I can see why someone might not take the time to deal with her situation during a call-in show. I don't think this example exemplifies elite disrespect of working people, or whatever Somerby is claiming occurred.

  7. During the “Weekend update” segment of last week’s Saturday Night Live show, Colin Jost joked:

    “The dating app Tinder announced a new feature this week, which gives users 37 different gender identity options. It’s called, ‘Why Democrats lost the election.'”

    1. Along those lines, I suppose the census should classify people as simply WASP and Other, or else the Democrats will lose another election. And the IRS can have people check one of two boxes: rich, poor, and leave it at that -- Trump's tax reform.

      And our political parties should abandon their names and simply call themselves Stupids and Smarts, since the world is surely getting more complicated and some people can deal with it and some cannot. That's why our elections are so close -- most people are somewhere in the middle.

    2. I know 4:52 is writing light-heartedly, but I hate the fact that the government classifies people by ethnicity. It reminds me of South Africa, classifying people as white, black or coloured. When some form or survey asks for my race, I always answer "Human".

    3. The difference is that the US classifies people to count them, not to assign rights, privileges and opportunities. What do you say when asked MF or is it just race that bothers you? I suggest Both or All or Neither. Or maybe All 37.

    4. In principle the US doesn't assign ethnicity to assign rights and privileges. In practice, it does do that, to a degree. But, that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that by assigning ethnicity, the Government is implicitly saying that a person's ethnicity is the most important thing about that person. Thus they encourage bad feelings between races.

    5. The govt doesn't assign ethnicity. You get that from your parents through the process of acculturation (aka growing up). The govt asks about lots of things so how is it emphasizing ethnicity? Does asking what sex you are encourage bad feelings between sexes? I think you are getting those bad feelings somewhere else, maybe Fox or Limbaugh.

    6. He mostly criticizes media elites, which is why I like to read this blog, even if some of the "this is why we lose" musings feel myopic.

    7. The government should cut-off white rural voters. All of it. Give them NOTHING.
      Sure, they're the "takers' Romney spoke about (taking WAY MORE from the government than they pay in taxes), but they're too stupid to know how good they have it.
      There's no possible way these poor deluded folks can bitch about it.
      After all, they already think the government does nothing for them.

    8. Anon 12:57 the government decided which characteristics should divide us. E.g., "Spanish Surname" is a separate category, but "Polish Surname" is not. Rather than classify people as white, black, Asian, etc., they could have chosen some other genetic characteristic, such as Short, Medium, Tall. By its choice, the government has implicitly determined that certain characterists divide people into separate groups, but other characterists don't.

  8. Hillary Clinton ran a campaign in which she mostly stuck to the issues and presented a series of thoughtful policies and programs. These were ignored by the news media and by voters. She was called lots of names by Republicans and she was attacked by Congress and the FBI and Wikileaks, with little defense from anyone except her supporters and surrogates. It was brutal.

    Was her loss because she called too many people names? I don't think so.

    If liberals called some names while trying to fight back against this unprecedented onslaught, if they pointed to the silence of the media and the unfairness of her opponents and the deplorable conduct of both Trump and his rally attendees, can you blame them for labeling? Can you blame them for their frustration?

    Clinton spoke with common sense when she suggested that BLM focus on a specific program of action, concrete suggestions for change. She gave comfort to the mothers of the dead sons shot by police. She didn't condone BLM or those men who were killed. She called for change in policing. That seems too subtle for the right, who heard themselves being called "racist" and thought BLM went too far. They didn't like feeling racist so they took it out on Hillary -- or so Somerby claims.

    I am tired of Somerby's rants. Hillary didn't win because men like Somerby couldn't bring themselves to abandon Bernie and express enthusiastic support for her. I would bet even money Somerby didn't vote for Hillary. I know he wouldn't vote for the disordered Trump, but perhaps he stayed home and is now trying to justify it as those liberals fault for being too unlike Malala. I am now too nauseated to type.

    1. I am pretty sure Bob Somerby voted for hillary Clinton. But when he got home he bragged to his Analysts he was very broadminded to do so because he disregarded the fact that her supporters were mostly dumb, disliked liberals who were her biggest problem because they were stupid enough to think themselves smarter than supporters of the other guy.

  9. Some people here sound like spoiled brats. "Tired of Bob" doing ANYTHING? Read yahoo news or watch Katy Tur, and leave. Sheez, disagree if you please but no one CARES about lecturing you.

    1. All Bob does is lecture US. About behavior we ALL emgage in.

  10. Hi everyone!!!

    I'm so excited share this testimony here about how i got my ex husband back after a break up. I'm Clara 28 yr old from USA, Am a woman who love and cherish my husband more than any other thing you can imagine on earth continent. My husband was so lovely and caring after 3 years of marriage he was seriously ill and the doctor confirm and said he has a kidney infection that he needed a kidney donor, that was how I start searching for who can help, doctor has given me a periodic hour that he will live just 24 hours left, that was how I ask the doctor if I can be of help to my husband that was how he carried out the text, the confirming was successful, I was now having this taught that since 3 years now we got married I have not be able to get pregnant can I be able to get bring again? That was the question I ask the doctor, he never answer his response was did you want to lost your husband? I immediately reply no I can't afford to lose him. After the operation my husband came back to live and was healthy I was also OK with the instruction given to me by the doctor, after 3 months my husband came home with another lady telling me, that is our new wife that will give us kids and take care of us, that was how I was confused and started crying all day, that was how my husband ran away with his new wife cleanable. Since then I was confuse don't know what to do that was how I went back to the doctor and tell him everything, he told me that, this is not just an ordinary it must be a spiritual problem that was how he gave me this Email: that I should tell he all my problem that he can help that was how i contacted he and I do as instructed. After 28 hours and I have done what he ask me to do, my husband start searching for me and went back to the doctor, that was how we well settle he also told me not to worry that I will get pregnant, this month making it the fifth Month I contacted he am now 3 months pregnant. These great spell cater is a great man,
    if you have any kind of problem you can contact him here on his
    Email: or call him +2348160153829
    Save Your Crumbling Relationship