LEADERSHIP DOWN: Outstanding youngsters who starred at Yale!

FRIDAY, MAY 3, 2019

Seem clueless about recent past:
Where did the leadership deficit start—the leadership deficit which helped send Donald J. Trump to the White House?

We expect to explore that question next week. We expect to do so in a series of award-winning reports, The Rise of Leadership Down.

That said, the deficit was in full flower by the time James B. Comey—widely known as Comey the God—launched his first attack on Candidate Clinton on the morning of July 5, 2016.

The god got way out over his skis as he batted the hopeful around. But so what? At the Rachel Maddow "cable news" show, it was an instant case of Leadership Down!

For two straight nights, guest host Steve Kornacki aggressively took Comey's side, attacking Clinton surrogates as they criticized the inappropriate conduct of the great establishment god.

On July 6, Kornacki savaged the late Ellen Tauscher when she tried to object to Comey's behavior. When Maddow returned from a well-earned vacation and resumed "her performance of the Rachel figure," Comey's name, and Comey's conduct, went unmentioned all through the summer of 2016, then very deep into the fall.

Sure enough! As the latest poisonous narrative formed around the doomed White House hopeful, Maddow was crafting the latest example of liberal Leadership Down!

Four summers earlier, Maddow had behaved the same way when Susan Rice was thrown under the bus and the poisonous Benghazi narratives took form. Back in 2009, when Maddow landed a rare interview with General Colin Powell, she absent-mindedly forgot to ask him how he had ever come to make that ludicrous United Nations presentation—the presentation which congealed elite opinion in favor of the war in Iraq.

Rachel Maddow is highly skilled at the practice known as "selling the car." For that reason, liberal viewers routinely fail to see the various ways they're getting conned by their self-adoring tribal star.

They love it when their corporate darling lists the various ways she's "not awesome at this job" thanks to her many "failures as a TV host." They see such behavior as the type of modesty which makes them want to protect their emotionally hapless leader.

We see that behavior as humble-bragging. Also, as an obvious form of ongoing Leadership Down.

Rachel deferred to Comey the God in the summer of 2016. Four years earlier, she had deferred to Saint McCain and Bob Schieffer as they invented the Benghazi narratives which would be used to take Candidate Clinton down.

Before that, she had deferred to Powell the God. That said, well-disguised deference to establishment power is a reliable feature of this popular TV show.

In such ways, the liberal and progressive worlds suffers beneath the yoke of Leadership Down. For another example of this remarkable syndrome, consider an essay which appeared in The Atlantic last week.

No, it wasn't the essay which puzzled over the puzzling fact that black kids are under-represented in public school gifted and talented programs. This other essay concerned the alleged "authenticity" of Candidate Buttigieg—and of a certain candidate who sought the White House in 2016.

The essay was written by Gilad Edelman, executive editor of the Washington Monthly. On the bright side, Edelman is nine years out of Columbia (class of 2009). Even better, he graduated from Yale Law School in 2015.

Then too, there's the down side. On the down side, this meritocratic star was maybe 4 or 5 years of age when the peculiar attacks on Clinton and Clinton began on page one of the New York Times in early 1992.

Gene Lyons wrote the book on those attacks—Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater.

The book had begun as a lengthy essay in Harper's, a venerable American publication which Edelman probably wasn't reading at the age of 6.

Harper's is a venerable publication. But because "the media" to which Lyons referred was mainly the Washington Post and the New York Times, the book which emerged from his essay in Harper's was almost wholly disappeared.

The history continues from there. Edelman may not have been aware of the Reverend Falwell's tireless efforts to tell theworld about the various murders Clinton and Clinton had committed.

Beyond that, the future star was maybe 11 in 1999 when MSNBC's Chris Matthews launched his astounding attacks on Senate candidate Hillary Clinton, describing her as "Nurse Ratched" and as "Evita Peron" and helping everyone understand how "witchy" she actually was.

During that same period, Matthews spent twenty straight months savaging Candidate Gore, "today's man-woman" and a guy "who would lick the bathroom floor to be president." The youngster was still negotiating his teenage years as Matthews, and quite a few other mainstream pundits, extended the deranged attacks on Candidate Clinton into Campaign 2008.

In short, Edelman was just a kid when this era's political and journalistic history was taking form. This may explain why he included this ridiculous but typical passage in his essay for The Atlantic:
EDELMAN (4/25/19): As a candidate and as president, Obama had the gift of seeming unrehearsed. He could deliver scripted speeches with the emotion, humor, energy, and surprise of someone articulating his ideas for the first time. Recall that one of the ways Republicans tried to bring him down was to point out that he was reading from teleprompters: They sought to undermine his authenticity by puncturing the illusion that he was speaking off the top of his head...

At the other end of the spectrum we find Hillary Clinton. Despite her obvious qualifications, she was hamstrung as a presidential candidate by an inability to sound like a normal person when addressing large audiences. Her performances in the major televised contexts in which most Americans saw her in 2016 were generally robotic and awkward—filled with strange pauses and painfully delivered jokes, drained of spontaneity. That, as much as anything, explains why voters were so primed to entertain questions about her authenticity and trustworthiness. (Clinton, to be sure, was also held to unfair standards because of her sex. But her problem was a variation of the same one that male candidates such as Al Gore and John Kerry faced before her.)
Good God! Has there ever been a more striking example of the phenomenon known to Future Anthropologists Huddled in Caves (TM) as Leadership Down?

Try to fathom what Edelman says in that remarkable passage! He says that many voters "entertained questions about [Candidate Clinton's] trustworthiness" because "most Americans" saw her as "generally robotic and awkward" in "the major televised contexts" of Campaign 2016!

Presumably, that would include her debates with Candidate Trump, each of which she was found to have won in surveys of voters who watched. But readers, ignore those surveys! Think instead about her "strange pauses" and her "painfully delivered jokes!"

Where do they manage to find young people who churn establishment script in this manner? For the record, they apparently find them standing in line on graduation day at Yale!

That said, has anyone ever said it more foolishly? According to Edelman, voters didn't question Clinton's trustworthiness because of decades of crazy attacks from authority figures like Falwell and Matthews.

It wasn't the claims about all those murders she and her husband had committed. It wasn't the Whitewater pseudo-scandal.

It wasn't the ways she behaved on the bunny slopes of ski resorts—alleged conduct we learned about from the lunatic work of Matthews, a genuine Trump-before-Trump during this remarkable earlier era.

It wasn't the Benghazi attacks which Maddow enabled, followed by the unrebutted attacks from Comey the God. It wasn't even the way Candidate Clinton so plainly resembled Nurse Ratched!

It wasn't any of that! To this child of elite attainment, it was Candidate Clinton's "strange pauses" which made voters doubt her trustworthiness! And then, Edelman pretended to ponder perceptions of Candidate Gore, who was crazily attacked for twenty straight months while Edelman was in junior high school!

Multiply that ridiculous passage perhaps ten thousand times. This is the way the rank and file of the liberal world are taught about their nation's recent political and journalistic history.

In fairness, it isn't just a new generation of youthful strivers who type and mouth this nonsense. A few says ago, we noted the way Jonathan Alter won't tell the truth about this remarkable journalistic history.

That said, the upper-end pseudo-liberal press corps loves to hire these youthful meritocrats—the obedient readers of script who made it all the way through the Stanfords and the Oxfords and even the Yales.

The Maddows know they can't tell you the truth. Quite possibly, the Edelmans have never heard the truth. As an example of what we mean, click over to this illustrative humble-brag from Edelman himself:
I got into Yale law school, yet last night it took me about 10 texts to figure out I was talking to a Tinder bot. So I dunno.
That's our very point, right there!

Publications like the Monthly and The Atlantic loves these striver kids. Indeed, this is one of the basic ways establishment narrative survives and prospers.

You simply aren't allowed to learn what has happened within your "press corps" over the past thirty years. According to Future Anthropologists, the day will come when disconsolate scholars will call this Leadership Down.

Tomorrow: On occasion, even from the genuine brightest and best


  1. Easy for Somerby to forget his own characterizations of Clinton as a deeply flawed candidate with a failed campaign -- his very words even while she was running.

    But the main problem here, as always, is that Somerby appears to consider the press to be liberal "leadership" and he ignores that the press themselves consider it their job to present what public figures have to say, not to pin them down or embarrass them or represent partisan points of view in their questioning. They consider their job to be asking questions in order to flesh out the views of the guest, not to challenge those views. Journalism is about reporting, not advocacy, not activism. Journalists are not debaters. That is for their guests to do, not the hosts.

    Somerby appears to long for someone to ask those hard questions, but doing so requires a guest with an opposing viewpoint, not a host with such a viewpoint.

    Somerby criticizes journalists for attending elite schools, but those particular schools (Yale, Harvard) are the ones with the best liberal arts programs. These are the places where students are more likely to learn about Vietnam and Benghazi, not places where current events and history are not taught. Learning is limited by the capacities and interests and motivation of the student, but there is the chance to learn that background at elite schools more than at Pepperdine or Liberty University or Arizona State.

    No disconsolate scholar will ever call this Leadership Down because Maddow and Edelman are not any part of Democratic leadership -- Pelosi and Schumer are and they do a fine job under adverse circumstances. Pelosi got ACA passed for Obama. So, it disgusts me when Somerby claims Democratic leadership is falling down on the job.

    Clinton had the election stolen from her by Russian interference and a Republican conspiracy to put Trump into office, aided by Comey and Assange and the lack of backbone of decent Republicans (if any exist) during a campaign that reached new depths of perfidy. Somerby should be talking about the failures of Republican Leadership who sold out their party in order to put conservative judges on the Supreme Court while Democrats did their best to stop it.

    Who is to blame? Not Maddow. The finger needs to be pointed at Bernie who didn't mind receiving Russian funding and who did everything he could to block Clinton from the presidency. Now he is doing the devil's work again, to help keep Trump in office. But Somerby likes Bernie! If the Democratic Leadership needs questioning, it should be asked why it permits someone like Bernie who is no Democrat and does not vote with Democrats in the Senate (despite "caucusing" with them) and leaves the party the minute the election is over, and attacks both the DNC and individual Democrats supposedly "from the left" -- why this man was ever allowed to run as a Democrat. That is a leadership failure worth discussing. But that is all A-OK with Somerby. Somerby might lead by example if he wishes to change the media, but he is worse than the folks he criticizes. Because he knew what the right was doing to Hillary and he helped them do it. He knew better and did wrong anyway.

    1. Clinton had the election stolen from her by Russian interference and a Republican conspiracy to put Trump into office, aided by Comey and Assange...

      As a participant in Howler threads, let alone as a Democrat, this is embarrassing. 11:58 AM is nuttier than a PayDay candy bar.

      [E]lite schools... those particular schools (Yale, Harvard)... [t]hese are the places where students are more likely to learn about Vietnam and Benghazi.

      This is what is called "bending the knee."

    2. "As a participant in Howler threads, let alone as a Democrat, this is embarrassing. "

      As a Democrat it's embarrassing? You've gotta be kidding. This is their chosen method of self-destruction.

      November 9, 2016, they had a clear choice: to repent and reform, or to throw a fit and turn rabid. They made the choice.

  2. "On July 6, Kornacki savaged the late Ellen Tauscher when she tried to object to Comey's behavior. When Maddow returned from a well-earned vacation and resumed "her performance of the Rachel figure," Comey's name, and Comey's conduct, went unmentioned all through the summer of 2016, then very deep into the fall."

    But of course you know why they behave that way, as well as everyone else, dear Bob.

    As the biggest fun of the dembot named Rachel, you must have heard this:

    "“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow."


  3. "meritocrats—the obedient readers of script"

    Papers such as the NY Times and other media establish codes of ethics for their staff. These include specific rules about how to conduct themselves and do their work.

    Here is an example: http://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/commstudies/ethics

    The NY Times specifically states with respect to politics:

    "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times."

    When they do not ask the kinds of questions that Somerby thinks they should, they believe they are exhibiting balance. They cannot take a partisan position and asking questions arising from the talking points of the left or right reveals bias that conflicts with the ethics of their job.

    This isn't a matter of meritocracy or elites or sticking to a script or being bought. It is a matter of keeping their personal views out of their coverage of whatever they have been assigned to write about.

    1. "Papers such as the NY Times and other media establish codes of ethics for their staff."

      You don't say! Thank god, now I can rest assured that their goebbelsian "reporting" is completely justified.

  4. The same thing is happening to the credibility of academia that happened to the news media, and none too soon.

  5. "Rachel Maddow is highly skilled at the practice known as "selling the car." "

    Hmm. Bob, I believe what you meant is "selling a lemon", no?

  6. “For two straight nights, guest host Steve Kornacki aggressively took Comey's side, attacking Clinton surrogates as they criticized the inappropriate conduct of the great establishment god.

    On July 6, Kornacki savaged the late Ellen Tauscher when she tried to object to Comey's behavior.”

    What, no links to the “taking of Comey’s side” and “savaging of Ellen Tauscher?”

    That’s because it didn’t happen.

    Kornacki guest hosted on July 5 and July 6. There was only one “Clinton surrogate” in those two programs, Ellen Tauscher. Somerby says “surrogates” plural. Nope.

    Kornacki did not praise Comey or treat him as a God either day.

    On July 6, he was aggressively asking Tauscher about the substance of what Comey said. He did not attack or “savage” Tauscher, nor did he “take Comey’s side” by asking tough questions. His questions were appropriate. And Tauscher failed to criticize Comey for the outrageousness of giving the press conference in the first place, which would have been criticizing Comey’s “inappropriate conduct”. She criticized some of the details of Comey’s presentation. Perhaps Tauscher was an ineffective surrogate.

    Here are the links for Somerby’s readers to read for themselves:


    1. Trump's official reason for firing Comey was the way he mistreated Clinton in that press conference and later, when he reopened the investigation of her emails just before the election.

    2. That’s more or less correct. It doesn’t change the fact that Steve Kornacki wasn’t defending Comey or savaging Tauscher.

  7. I invite you to read the transcript of the Chris Hayes program from July 5, 2016, in which the following exchange between Hayes and Matthew Miller occurs, one that is never discussed by Somerby:

    “And, Matthew, let me begin with you, you were tweeting about your umbrage at the decision by James Comey to give this fairly extraordinary and I think quite abnormal, long monologue in announcing the charges. What did you find objectionable about that?

    MATTHEW MILLER. FORMER DOJ DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Yes, extraordinary, abnormal, totally unprecedented and appalling in a lot of ways. The Department of Justice and the FBI`s job is to investigate these cases. If they find a violation of law that they can prove in court, they bring an indictment and they make their case in court. And sometimes, they`ll talk about that case publicly when they`ve brought an indictment. But their job when they don`t bring charges, and this is true for every individual they investigate and some reason in Director Comey`s mind wasn`t true for Secretary Clinton. When they decline to bring charges, they can announce they`re not bringing charges, but what shouldn`t happen is for the director of the FBI to stand up at a press conference and make a bunch of reckless charges like he did against Hillary Clinton today.”


  8. Hello everyone, am very happy to share this little awesome testimony about Dr olu a great herbal doctor who help me enlarge my penis size.3.2 cm to 8.3 cm longer with his herbal cream mixture, my girlfriend is now so amazed with the autonomous size of my penis , if you you are also in need of help on how to enlarge your penis to become bigger and stronger I adverse you to contact Dr on his email (drolusolutionhome@gmail.com) ) you or contact on whatsapp number +2348140654426 because he is one of the best herbal doctor that i can only show you up to, if your penis is 4.2 cm and want to get it reach 9.2 cm within three weeks i Dr olu is also specialized on obey m breast and boobs enlargement i advise you to contact him for help