BEHIND THE CURTAIN CONTINUED: Lozada to the underwear drawer!

MONDAY, MAY 8, 2017

Part 5—Valley of the Dowds:
The New York Times has gotten our week off to a helpful start.

On the paper's reimagined page A3, the always helpful Here to Help feature is headlined as shown below. No, we aren't making this up:
Here to Help
Readers, we sh*t you not! Nor does the self-parodic behavior end there.

How to get ketchup out of a bottle! The Times proceeds to offer four ideas designed to help us accomplish this task. Clownishly, these suggestions come from no less an authority than Professor Anthony Strickland (no middle initials), "a senior lecturer in the department of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of Melbourne in Australia."

(On the brighter side, we can imagine that no American professor was willing to lend his or her name to this particular gong-show.)

Long ago, a fellow named Clemens composed a famous passage. In it, he burlesqued the way we rubes are inclined to fall for the blandishments of such learneds, or at least for the mugging and clowning of a pair of fallen royals.

Years later, Meredith Willson composed a famous musical about Professor Harold Hill, who sold a line of trombones.

Our own grandfather toured New Brunswick in the 1880s with a troupe of trained monkeys, performing under the name Professor Wormwood. (This seems to have been a franchise of some kind.) To its credit, Harvard University has finally acknowledged its debt to Grandfather Rufus—in this case, to the show he instantly mounted in the wake of Lincoln's death.

(Click here, scroll to the bottom. Then click two more times.)

Professor Hill sold a line of trombones; this morning, a colleague dispenses free advice concerning the world's ketchup flow. This performance is in line with the New York Times' brand, which is built around the bogus idea that subscribers are being exposed to the world's brainiest discourse.

The pimping of this bogus brand is endless. Comically, today's "Here to Help, the ketchup edition" tells us where we can go for more erudition of this type:

For more life tips, look for
Smarter Living at

We sh*t you not! The professor's discussion on ketchup retrieval has been placed at a site called "Smarter Living!" The endless performance of this jive lies at the heart of this newspaper's highly successful brand.

Twain's Arkansans couldn't quite see that the duke and the king were frauds. In River City, Iowans believed that their children would learn how to play those trombones.

Years later, Garrison Keillor invented Lake Wobegon, a mythical Minnesota town where "the children are all above average." And sure enough:

Today, the Times is offering ketchup acquisition advice from a molecular engineering professor Down Under. Even worse, the Washington Post hit "peak Lozada" in yesterday's Outlook section.

Or at least, we hope they did.

Lozada, of course, is Carlos Lozada, a callow scribe who can no longer be dismissed as a callow youth.

Lozada graduated from Notre Dame in the class of 1993. Later, he pounded out a master's degree at an even loftier school, Princeton. These credentials made him fully employable within the upper-end guild.

Lozada has been at the Washington Post since 2005. Here's what Baron and Merida said in 2014, when Lozada moved on from a "stellar" run as editor of the paper's high-profile Sunday Outlook section:
BARON AND MERIDA (10/13/14): We are delighted to announce that, after a stellar five-year run as editor of Outlook, Carlos Lozada will become The Post’s new nonfiction book critic, writing regular weekly reviews and contributing to online coverage of nonfiction books and long-form nonfiction.

From his perch in Outlook, Carlos has already established himself as a fresh voice in Post criticism, writing everything from essays on book-title trends (“The end of everything”) to reviews of high-profile books on politics, foreign policy, economics and culture, such as Mark Leibovich’s “This Town,” or William Deresiewicz’s “Excellent Sheep.”

This summer, Carlos developed a detailed proposal on how to reimagine the role of the nonfiction book critic for a digital age–and proceeded to pitch himself for the role. He had a great idea, and we agreed that he’d be perfect for it.
Refreshingly, that pitch came from the Post's aptly-named "WashPost PR Blog."

As with A2 and A3 at the Times, Lozada had done some reimagining. In the process, he pitched himself for this reimagined role as the Post's non-fiction book critic.

The suits thought Lozada's ideas were great. They thought Lozada himself would be perfect for the role in question, which would be new. improved and better.

As one part of his idea, Lozada's reviews now appear beneath an embarrassing brand at the Post (Book Party). Sad but true! Yesterday, the callow fellow was "partying hearty" in a massive, sprawling spread on Outlook's high-profile front page.

It seems to us that Lozada's review offers us a horrible look behind a journalistic curtain. What sorts of folk lurk behind that screen, at the top of our upper-end guild?

We strongly suggest that you read Lozada's immensely sad, but highly familiar and highly instructive, 2700-word book review from yesterday's Outlook section. Where once the Dowdism only crept, eventually the Dowdism conquered, just as Katherine Boo had warned the world in 1992, when Lozada was still just a senior in college.

(Perhaps for obvious reasons, the Washington Monthly doesn't make Boo's prophetic piece available on line.)

Lozada's mammoth review concerns a new tome by David Garrow. In his review, Lozada sticks his long Dowdistic nose deep into the underwear drawer and, like one of "the four extant mammal species of the suborder Vermilingua (meaning 'worm tongue') commonly known for eating ants and termites," he never withdraws his big long nose from that perfumed location.

The underwear drawer in question belongs to Barack Obama—rather, to a much younger such person, to the Barack Obama of the 1980s. When the rewards become too vast within the tents of a nation's "press corps," this seems to be where the noses of such grasping folk end up.

At any rate, Lozada's review captures one of the major obsessions of the upper-end mainstream press corps of the Clinton-Gore-Clinton era. In part because the Chaits, the Dionnes, the Drums, the Maddows never pushed back against this conduct, Donald J. Trump is in the White House, and your national discourse lies in ruins.

It would be hard to summarize the leering vapidity Lozada assembles in this pathetic piece. Did we mention the fact that his review runs almost 2700 words? That he never quite gets his big long nose out of that underwear drawer?

The blame for this may lie in part with Garrow himself, whose book isn't available yet. The blame may lie with Sheila Miyoshi Jager, as associate professor at Oberlin who seems to be crying, three decades later, because the young Obama asked her to marry him only twice, when he apparently should have made the traditional third attempt at the prize.

Whatever! Jager seems to be out of her mind, though Lozada never seems to notice. In a scathing review in the New York Times, Michio Kakutani seems to suggest that the same can be said of Garrow himself.

Without being able to see the endless book in question (1460 pages!), we can't evaluate the extent to which Garrow himself stays in the underwear drawer. But Lozada enters it in his first few grafs and never chooses to exit.

Funny this! Garrow won a Pulitzer Prize for Bearing the Cross, an 800-page history of the whole freaking civil rights movement. In that book, he managed to restrain himself from living his entire life inside Dr. King's drawer.

On one early page of that book, Garrow discusses Dr. King's romance, early in graduate school, with a young "white" woman he wanted to marry. Somehow, Garrow managed to do this without suggesting that the episode meant that Dr. King was an Uncle Tom, a self-hating black, a person lacking an inner core or a horrible person in general. On pages 375 and 376 of that same book, Garrow briefly discussed Dr. King's later (extra-marital) "sexual athleticism" without spinning out of control and consigning Dr. King's soul to eternal damnation.

Although we haven't read his new book, it sounds like Garrow wasn't able to restrain himself in these ways in his new book, which Kakutani describes as a literary nightmare. One thing is quite clear, however. Lozada seems to care about nothing but life in the drawer.

Let's pray this is peak Lozada! As he noses around where a man of his low moral intelligence doesn't belong, he draws the dumbest, ugliest judgments from the dumbest and weirdest types of "evidence."

These associate professors today! Lozada builds an endless review around the recollections and claims of a 53-year-old associate professor who seems to be out of her freaking mind, or something somewhat like it. Thirty years later, Jager still seems to be yammering and complaining about the fact that Obama didn't ask her to marry him for the required third time.

Thirty years later, Lozada laps this puerile nonsense up. He fingers himself as he goes on and on and on, displaying the product about which Boo gave warning decades ago.

Lozada has long been a weirdly unintelligent, callow presence at Outlook. Yesterday, he thoroughly jumped the shark. We ask you to consider the possibility of putting his ridiculous piece into this primal framework:

When the rewards are very large, the wrong kinds of people will perhaps be attracted to journalism. When the people at the top of a newspaper are lounging around in $20 million summer homes, the values within such organizations will possibly rot away, in the manner observed over the past thirty years.

Beyond that:

When the Dionnes, the Chaits, the Beinarts, the Drums refuse to warn liberals about this rather obvious process, we the liberals will fail to see what's happening right before us. In an action which will engulf the gods in laughter, we will stage our heroic march on January 21, 2017—roughly twenty-five years too late, exactly one day after Trump has taken the oath!

Alas! When we peek behind the curtain, we see a long line of Lozadas. Boo issued her warning long ago, but a long line of liberal careerists refused to repeat what she said.

Dearest darlings, use your heads! Such things simply aren't done!

When we peak behind the curtain, we also see a long line of Harold Hills. They very much like to mug and clown, providing us with the type of pleasure Twain described at the circus.

They like to pretend to consult the professors. They like to say they gave us Our Own Rhodes Scholar. This makes us feel smart and good.

They huddled in their summer homes on Nantucket just down the road from their owner, Jack Welch. Inside that grasping, clutching world, they developed the culture of Trumpism long before Candidate Donald J. Trump came along.

As in River City of old, we liberals can't seem to see who these people actually are, and our leaders refuse to tell us.

Tomorrow, we'll present the most comical story from this long line of cultural clowns. People are dead all over the world because of such comical conduct.

Tomorrow: The three faces of Rachel's TV


  1. Richard Armour:

    “Shake and shake the catsup bottle. None will come, and then a lot'll.”

  2. They don't even give you the best answer, which is two-fold: 1. Hold the bottle at about a 45 degree angle and then very firmly tap on the side of the bottle, repeatedly, until the ketchup starts coming out, and 2. Why do they put ketchup in those stupid bottles anyway, instead of in a jar like mustard?

    1. 1. Growing up in Pittsburgh back in the day we had school field trips to the Heinz factory. They taught us to tap the #57 on the bottle neck on our fingers, and the ketchup comes right out. Plastic bottles ruin all that training. 2. Nothing grosser than jar content cross contamination with other condiments.

  3. Attack the behavior, Bob, not the person. Unless you think being a professor made Jager crazy or unmarriageable, who cares what her occupation is.

    Explain why the undie drawer doesn't matter, don't attack Lozada for going to Yale or trying to get a promotion.

  4. I wonder if Somerby realizes that the so-called Style and Daily Living sections of the newspapers were originally called the Ladies page or Women's Section, and were the traditional home of things like Dear Abby and recipes too. There, and in the Society pages, were the only places women's names were ever mentioned. It took a long time for women and their interests to break out of the segregated sections of the newspaper. Somerby is on the wrong side of the angels when he calls this stuff "dumbing down" the news. Are the concerns of hearth and home really dumb? Are women dumb for having been confined to those interests as recently as the 1970s?

    Somerby sounds like the old gentleman who is upset that his club now admits women -- their chatter will disrupt the peace and quiet of his sanctum. After all, even a woman who is a professor is probably crazy -- even though he hasn't read the book and doesn't know what she was reported as saying, much less whether it is true.

    And don't get him started on how Hillary didn't stay in her place but pushed herself out into politics, stealing the nomination from its rightful owner -- Bernie. And now she won't keep her mouth shut about Comey and the Russians but is actively fund-raising to resist Trump and the Republicans, when she should be home walking in the woods and knitting something.

    Somerby's nostalgia for antique musicals and his grandfather's flimflam may extend to the obsolete sexual politics of a previous era, where there was none of this frivolous nonsense in the real news pages and the ladies kept their mouths shut.

    1. Franklin DonovanMay 8, 2017 at 6:30 PM

      He has mentioned the history of the Ladies Pages before in posts about Dowd so he is aware of it.

    2. Doesn't that make it worse when he then insists that such material remain in the back pages or in a separate section where its dumbness won't pollute the stuff he likes to read?

    3. The stupidity is AOK. Calling it out is very bad.

    4. Somerby isn't the best judge of what is stupid. He himself went to Harvard, making him elite for life.

    5. Franklin DonovanMay 9, 2017 at 4:06 AM

      I didn't know he insisted as much. And I don't care either way.

  5. What if Sarah Palin had been nominated instead of Romney - would it have been sexist to vote for Obama?

    1. Golly, the painfully trite and tired "what if a terrible Republican woman was running" argument. It would have been sexist to vote FOR an Uncle Tom women, stupid. But Hillary was not such a ringer, so for supposedly progressive males to oppose her, it was incredibly sexist.

    2. Turns out the misogynist and race conscious Bernie Bros were black [LINK].

    3. Great find CMike. A key, key finding. Will Bob are anyone else follow up on it or will they continue to keep it under wraps?

      "In Ohio, black voter turnout dropped 7.5 percent; in Wisconsin, it declined 12.3 percent; and in Michigan, it was down 12.4 percent."

      Ouch, ouch and ouch! This info could not have been that hard to find immediately after the election. Yet stories of white voters in Corbin Ky. were fed to us instead and Bob got suckered into wasting weeks talking about it. I smell a rat. A big fat distracting rat.


    4. I take it back, there were articles about this right after the election, but Bob never looked, I guess? Whites in Ky who haven't voted for a Dem since Truman were deemed more important than what had happened in Michigan and Wisconsin.

      Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. Mote than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton! They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

      Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

    5. It's amazing how willfully blind you are of the unrelenting coordinated successful voter suppression efforts have impacted the election.

      The system, called Crosscheck, is detailed in my Rolling Stone report,
      “The GOP’s Stealth War on Voters,” 8/24/2016.

      Crosscheck in action:
      Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
      Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

      Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
      Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

      Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
      North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

      On Tuesday, we saw Crosscheck elect a Republican Senate and as President, Donald Trump. The electoral putsch was aided by nine other methods of attacking the right to vote of Black, Latino and Asian-American voters, methods detailed in my book and film, including “Caging,” “purging,” blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to “provisional” ballots that will never be counted.

    6. Apologies, the above information came from Greg Palast,

    7. Too bad mm and Greg Palast have been keeping all of this a secret since Florida, 2000. Otherwise, Clinton might not have grandstanded on this issue in the way that she did during the third debate.

      So who was right mm, Hillary "she of infinite knowledge" Clinton or Palast?

      Wallace: Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You've been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you.

      Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you'll absolutely accept the result of the election.

      Trump: I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I’ve seen, is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing. "The New York Times" actually wrote an article about it, but they don't even care.

      It is so dishonest, and they have poisoned the minds of the voters. But unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they’re going to see through it, we’ll find out on November 8th, but I think they’re going to see through it. If you look --

      Wallace: But, but --

      Trump: Excuse me, Chris. If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote. Millions. This isn't coming from me. This is coming from Pew report and other places. Millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be registered to vote.

      So let me just give you one other thing. I talk about the corrupt media. I talk about the millions of people. I'll tell you one other thing. She shouldn't be allowed to run. It’s -- She's guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run, and just in that respect I say it's rigged because she should never --

      Wallace: But, but --

      Trump: Chris. She should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things.

      Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner.

      Not saying you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle?

      Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay?


    8. ...continued

      Clinton: Well Chris, let me respond to that because that’s horrifying. You know, every time Donald thinks things aren't going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him.

      The FBI conducted a yearlong investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case. He said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus, he lost the Wisconsin primary, he said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then, Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering.

      He claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged against him.

      Trump: Should have gotten it.


      Clinton: This is a mind-set. This is how Donald thinks, and it's funny, but it's also really troubling. That is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you're whining before the game is even finished--


      Wallace: Hold on, folks.

      Clinton:-- It just shows you're not up to doing the job. And let's be clear about what he's saying and what that means. He's denigrating, he is talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.
      [END QUOTE]

    9. CMike, you really are a waste of my time.

      I'll go with the former First Lady, former US Senator from NY and former Secretary of State, ok?

      And we all know that in order to be strong in the world, though, we first have to be strong at home. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.

      We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.

      We need Justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections.

      If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

      I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That's why I've proposed universal, automatic registration and expanded early voting.

      I’ll fight back against Republican efforts to disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities, and people of color.

      What part of democracy are they afraid of?

      That was from her speech in 2015 announcing her intent to run.

      Or how about this.

      Deviating from her usual stump speech about Trump’s threat to national security and American values, Clinton cited a recent federal court ruling that found the state guilty of intentional voter suppression by using voter ID laws, deep cuts to early voting, and other legal changes that, in the words of the court, “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

      “These laws are a blast from the Jim Crow past and have no place in 21st century America,” she said. “We should be doing everything we can to make it easier to vote, not harder.”

      You able to walk and chew gum at the same time Cmike?

    10. Funny, that's not what Secretary Clinton was talking about when she had an audience on October 19, 2016. Guess voters should have spent more time combing through her website- their bad.

    11. By the way mm, why hasn't the voter suppression complaint been included with the incessant ones about Comey and Russia by Clinton spin doctors, cyber bros, and Hillary, herself? More bad advice you all are taking from polling dolt Robby Mook?

    12. Screw you, asshole. That was one of her signature issues from day 1. Of course as we know, an empty podium was given more priority over her many many policy laden speeches. You're just a dishonest asshole CMike. She was talking about this constantly.

      But it was the portion of her speech where she uncharacteristically went on a personal attack against former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that was the apex of her speech.

      About two-thirds of the way into her remarks, she blasted the group for “fear-mongering” on a “phantom epidemic of election fraud.”

      “Former Governor Rick Perry signed a law that a federal court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters,” she said. “He applauded when the Voting Rights Act was gutted.” She slammed Texas for having laws where student IDs are not accepted as valid identification at the polls but a concealed weapons permit is.

      “In Wisconsin, Scott Walker cut back early voting and signed legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote,” she said, and called out Christie for vetoing legislation to extend early voting.

      “In Florida, when Jeb Bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters before the 2000 presidential election,” she said. “Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.”

      Of her four targets, only Perry is a declared candidate so far.

      Clinton challenged the entire group to “explain why they’re so scared of citizens having their say.”

      Too bad you had your head stuck so far up your own ass you never heard her talk about it. That woman showed more guts than any other candidate.

    13. Let's try this again...

      By the way mm, why hasn't the voter suppression complaint been included with the incessant ones about Comey and Russia by Clinton spin doctors, cyber bros, and Hillary, herself? More bad advice you all are taking from polling dolt Robby Mook?

    14. You're an asshole CMike.

      This isn't a fucking game.

  6. I won't be reading about catsup in the Times, but can recommend those newish bottles that are designed to stand upside down, thereby letting gravity in all its wonder allow a measured emission of catsup.

    Those who eat out and are faced with an old style bottle should not touch it, as doing so will attach the disdain of nearby diners.

  7. Somerby needs to read this, also CMike:

    1. Markos Moulitsas, the progressive who double-crossed his followers the instant he got himself inside the gates they crashed, writes:

      [QUOTE] The hardcore Bernie Sanders dead-enders—the ones who insist on waging jihad against the party and its mainstream liberal adherents—are undying in their belief that income equality can solve all ills. Dubbed “alt-left” on Twitter (quickly replacing “Bernie Bro” as the preferred moniker), this crowd has resorted to using words like “identity politics” and “political correctness” to strike at their mainstream liberal detractors. Yup, they are adopting left-wing critiques right out of the conservative movement’s playbook. [END QUOTE]

      Kos titles his post: If we agree on the issues, why are so many on the left fighting each other? Anonymous @9:11 PM links to it, and suggests I read it.

      One of these two cyber warriors is training his followers to troll. The other one, apparently, can't figure that out, thinking instead he's read something irrefutable. Rush has legions of ditto-heads he's been stringing along with right-wing versions of this crap for near thirty years now. "Pay no attention where power and wealth lies in America, concentrate on how righteous we are."

      Here's the deal, entrepreneurs like Kos aren't actually ever going to do anything useful for the undocumented or for the underclass in America. He's put himself at the head of his own endless insider hustle. Kos is making a career for himself workin' the Jesse Jackson model.

      If you do, actually, want working class people to feel more politically empowered as individuals and act accordingly; if you want to see a more generous attitude towards those in need prevailing in America; if you want citizens to demand their institutions become ever more humane; if you want a population that is ever less threatened by diversity, then step one is to work towards creating, then sustaining, a broad based sense of economic security among the citizenry. Once we get there we'll be better able to afford the distractions of self-promoters like Kos.

    2. So I guess you choose universal health care then?

    3. Universal health care is a way towards a society where:

      [QUOTE] Women don’t have their pussies grabbed by asshole men

      Black kids aren’t being murdered by police, treated differently in courts

      Latino and Asian families aren’t being torn apart by immigration authorities

      Muslim and Jewish people aren’t being shot at, their places of worship and holy sites desecrated.
      [END QUOTE]

      Universal healthcare would become a part of a bulwark against the politics of a "glorious wall and enhanced hiring of jackbooted government ICE thugs to raid homes, schools, and workplaces."

      Telling half the population they're privileged, racist, misogynistic scum bags won't protect the vulnerable. If you go that route you're sure to end up with a worse, not better, America.

    4. Said the clown who contributed to Trump's election by writing in Bernie Sanders. At least you voted, I guess.

    5. CMike, the Russians and Putin's main goal, their primary objective was to slander Clinton's character and split the Democratic coalition just enough to swing the election. Congratulations, stooge, Putin is very happy how successful he was.

    6. And they are still doing it.

    7. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate pushing a bankrupt political philosophy- neoliberalism. She lost to a candidate who had a 37% favorable number on election day. Months later, in April, 2017 polling, Clinton and the Democrats were less popular than they were on November 8, 2016.

      (mm, I thought you finally figured out you should go with the voter suppression explanation.)

    8. Hillary didn't lose.

    9. Calling Clinton neoliberal just means she isn't a socialist. She had the same voting record and "liberal" rating in the senate as Bernie. She had better positions on things I care about such as education, research funding and women's issues. Bernie was a single issue candidate.

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. No, that's not what it means @2:11 PM. For everyone else, when you hear Clinton apologists equate New Deal/Great Society liberalism with socialism you know you're listening to neoliberal blather.

    12. "For everyone else ...."


  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. NYTimes muscling in on What's next? Timecube?

  10. I have something to share with you!!! There is a great joy in my heart
    which I want to share with everyone. My name is Caroline Webb from United
    States. I had a misunderstanding with my lover last year which led us to
    break up and he never wanted to hear my voice again. He saw a beautiful
    woman which he find more prettier than me, but as time went on I met god Dr lucky He is a great spell caster. I contacted him through his email and
    explained everything to him. He said that I shouldn't worry, that my lover
    will come back to me on his knees begging for forgiveness before 24
    hours.My greatest joy now is that he actually came back to me and fell on
    his knees begging for forgiveness, and today we are happy and he also cured
    my Sister's breast cancer. Do you have any problem? worry no more because
    Dr lucky can provide lasting spell solution to any problems:email him Dr or call him +23480139792383 or add him on whats- app +23480139792383

    If you want your ex back.

    You want to be promoted in your office.

    If you want to be cured of HIV, Cancers and other diseases.

    You want to be rich.

    You want your husband/wife to be yours forever.

    If you need financial assistance.


  11. only have this little chance to tell you people about this powerful spell caster that brought back my lover to me within 3days. His name is dr obasi of the Shrine For Solution.My Husband left home since four months ago without even a call from him.I have cried for help but all that heard my cry kept on collecting my money without doing anything.A friend introduced me to dr obasi because he has helped her own sister in bringing back her lover.I contacted him, i cried so much and he heard my cried and he said he is for real and not like others.I want to confirm to you people that the following morning after he has started the work, my lover emailed me and also sent his friends to beg me not to be angry that should he come home? He is hungry and love to be with me. My lover is back and how do you expect me not to talk about dr obasi ? How on earth do you expect me to forget about him.You can contact him and he will do it for you, i assure you. His email address is His cell number is +2349065671269.I am 101% sure that he will do it for you too because i know that there are so many people who needs help.We have made love and getting ready for a trip to Dubai. Thank you once again dr obasi, i will forever be greatful to you.and his web site is [] I am Stephanie Wilson from UK










    Do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster Dr.obasi on his email: or call +2349065671269 thank you

  12. Machine liker 2018 enables to obtain endless machineliker no person could comment like and also share your condition.

  13. Allow us to send you receipts as well as tips Official Website for security reasons, will certainly not be the same as.

  14. I am so happy for making the right choice by contacting Dr. Irosi who helped me in getting my ex back by casting a love spell on him. One of the best decision i ever made was contacting Dr. Irosi to help me get my lover back, I was life filled with happiness after i contacted Dr. Irosi because he didn't just bring my lover back to me he also made our love for each other more unique and superb. If you need to spice your relationship with more love and attention contact Dr. Irosi on his Email Address [] and be happy just like i am, thanks Dr. Irosi for your great work.   

  15. I am so happy for making the right choice by contacting Dr. Irosi who helped me in getting my ex back by casting a love spell on him. One of the best decision i ever made was contacting Dr. Irosi to help me get my lover back, I was life filled with happiness after i contacted Dr. Irosi because he didn't just bring my lover back to me he also made our love for each other more unique and superb. If you need to spice your relationship with more love and attention contact Dr. Irosi on his Email Address [], call or whatsapp him via his contact +2348118829771 and be happy just like i am, thanks Dr. Irosi for your great work.