IN SEARCH OF SERIOUS: Intern rushes off to New York!


(Wise-Cracking) Kid With the Stand: In fairness, there's no such thing as a perfect way to tell an important story.

That said, there are ways of telling important stories which don't seem to make much sense. Consider the intern who rushes off to New York in the Oscar-nominated 2017 film, The Post.

The film was directed by our nation's best-known story teller—by the Homer of our own time. It purports to tell an important story. The background would be this:

The year is 1971. The New York Times has gained access to the so-called "Pentagon Papers," a gigantic, top-secret study which details the possibly unattractive history of American involvement in Indochina, leading up to and including the American war in Vietnam.

The study was supposed to be secret. The leading authority on the matter offers this overview:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with coastal raids on North Vietnam and Marine Corps attacks—none of which were reported in the mainstream media. 


The study consisted of 3,000 pages of historical analysis and 4,000 pages of original government documents in 47 volumes, and was classified as "Top Secret—Sensitive". ("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that access to the study should be controlled.) 

Access to the study had been controlled; suddenly, it no longer was. When the Times was ordered by a federal court to cease publication of the Papers, the Washington Post decided to ignore the order and publish the material itself.

In theory, The Post tells the story of that decision by that newspaper. It's presented as a momentous decision—but as portrayed in the Oscar-nominated film, the decision-making is punctuated, again and again, by a highly peculiar form of silly cinematic fun, creating a type of representation which might be called Stumblebum Chic.

Consider one of the ways this cinematic silliness gets its Spielbergian start:

Early in the film, the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee has a solid hunch. He's convinced that the New York Times is about to break a big story about Vietnam. 

He bases this theory upon the fact that Neil Sheehan, the paper's star Vietnam reporter, hasn't had a report in the Times for the previous three months.

Bradlee does what any top executive editor would do at such a point in time:

"Intern," Bradlee bellows, having opened the door to his office. 

In response, a small, nervous fellow who looks like a teenager quickly appears for assignment. Bradlee instructs the intern to take the next train to New York City and learn what Sheehan is up to. 

(He hands him $40 to pay for the ticket, then tells him to get a receipt.)

How in the world might this very young intern accomplish this seemingly impossible task? Within certain realms of story-telling, there's no need to wonder about such buzz-killing questions as that.

Nor does this nervous young intern fail to reward Bradlee's trust. When the plainly awestruck youngster arrives on the sidewalk in front of the New York Times Building, he asks a deliveryman what floor the newspaper is on. 

He then swipes an undelivered package from the deliveryman's cart and heads into the building. 

On the elevator, a group of five or six New York Times honchos are discussing the very topic the youngster was sent to explore! Peeking over the shoulder of one, the intern spots the layout of the front page of the next day's Times. He tells the honchos that he was in the building to deliver the package he swiped, then hurries back to Washington to report what he has learned.

The absurdity of this chain of events would seem to speak for itself. That said, we haven't yet mentioned the Spielbergian silliness which punctuates this piece of peak story-telling.

It's merely one instance of such silliness; the film is larded with same. But in this one instance, the Spielbergian silliness presents in the following way:

When the intern arrives in New York, we first see him as he stands across the street from the aforementioned Times Building. He looks up in wonder at the name of the building, then rushes across the street.

As he does, he comes extremely close to being hit by a speeding Yellow cab. The intern comes remarkably close to having his own story end right there.

From there, the intern proceeds to his masterful sleuthing concerning the New York Times' plans. But in this near-miss on the streets of New York, he becomes the second kid in this highly-regarded movie who has almost been run down by a cab, joining another youngster who has been told to run, not walk, as he moves copy from building to building for the Times itself.

At this point, we're only twenty minutes into the film. Already, two youngsters have come close to being planted by Yellow cabs, though each of the youngsters survives. 

In fairness, this only begins to scratch the surface of the silliness suffusing this film. For some reason, it's merely the point where we decided to start our complaint this day.

In his excitement, a runner for the New York Times almost gets hit by a cab. Minutes later, an intern for the Washington Post has a similar narrow escape.

At this point in the film, we haven't yet encountered The (Wise-Cracking) Girl With the Lemonade Stand, or The Hapless General Assignment Reporter who keeps describing The Hippie Girl In the Tie-Dyed Skirt, even though no one is listening to a single word he says.

We haven't encountered The Top Reporter for The Post who forgets to be ready with pencil and paper as he seeks a key telephone number, then proceeds to spill his fistful of change all over the sidewalk as he tries to dial that number on an untraceable pay phone.

We haven't been asked to swallow the young woman at the Post who strides through the newsroom trailing something like twelve feet of teletype copy behind her.  We haven't been asked to enjoy the madcap fun as a gang of Post employees spread piles of papers all over two rooms in the Bradlee home as they try to put the Pentagon Papers in some sort of order.

As they do, The Girl With the Lemonade Stand wander hither and yon. She accepts payment for her product and at one point offers a wisecracking remark at the expense of her elders.

If memory serves, we put the film on pause, wondering who the director could be, after watching the overtly shlubby general assignment reporter continue to talk in his hapless way when no one was listening. The repetitive silliness of these moments made us wonder who was in charge of the story-telling on the Hollywood end

It turned out that Steven Spielberg was, and Spielberg's a good decent person. For the record, it was his daughter, the actress Sasha Spielberg, who played the hippie girl in the tie-dyed skirt who the ineffectual general assignment reporter continued describing to no one.

A peculiar aesthetic seem to pervade this Oscar-nominated film. It's an aesthetic in which we're led to believe that this major moment in modern history was executed by a gang of semi-competent high-end bumblers who are, perhaps reassuringly, even more hapless than we are. 

One subtext of this peculiar film might thereby be: "Stumblebums Save the Republic." No cinematic cliché gets left behind as we see the republic saved in this entertaining manner. This creates oodles of silly cinematic fun as our national story proceeds.

As we watched the film last weekend, we thought the story-telling was extremely odd—this "representation of reality" (see yesterday's report). We were struck by the way this important story is told—in a way routinely borne along by something resembling a flight from the merely serious.

An intern gets the drop on the Times; a wise-cracking kid wanders hither and yon. We haven't mentioned the major Post honcho—the same fellow who spilled his change all over the sidewalk—who flies home from Boston with the Papers, haplessly trying to fasten a seatbelt to the carton the Papers are in on the seat next to him on the plane.

We were struck by the succession of silly moments which keep invading this film. And yet, it made us think of the way our nation's stories are currently being told as "our democracy," such as it was, continues to slide toward the sea.

Tomorrow: Based on true events!


  1. "there are ways of telling important stories which don't seem to make much sense"

    But, dear Bob, presumably this thing was concocted for the rank-and-file dembot audience, n'est-ce pas?

    And the dembots, as we all are well aware, have no brains. So, it doesn't really matter that the shit they consume is utterly idiotic...

    1. Hey lowlife. Rolling around in your own filth much today?

    2. No brains and no real identity. There is a missing piece. They think they're characters in movies like The Post. Their historical knowledge comes from whitewashed biopics.

    3. We need Mel Gibson to make 'The Passion of the Trump.'

    4. Meh. Trumpism is not about Trump. Trumpism is about a rebellion of the working people.

      If you want Mel Gibson and overromanticized heroics, then it's more like Braveheart...

    5. If that was true, your Establishment bosses would hate Trumpism.

    6. Mao wanted to protest Trump’s HUGE tax break for the Establishment, but he was too hungover from the open bar his Establishment bosses had at the party to celebrate Trump’s favor.

    7. Mao says: "Trumpism is about a rebellion of the working people."

      And yet Trump supporters have higher incomes than those supporting Democratic candidates.

      Everyone works except the independently wealthy and those who cannot, for one reason or another. Trump certainly doesn't support unions, minimum wage or living wage. He hired undocumented immigrants to work at Mar a Lago. Trump told a bunch of lies about keeping industry in the midwest, then failed to follow through on his promises.

    8. John Wayne killed the Commies in the Green Berets movie and Stallone went back to Nam and killed some more in Rambo. So we kinda won the war, really. No need to read any stinkin' Pentagon Papers.

    9. "And yet Trump supporters have higher incomes than those supporting Democratic candidates."

      Is that a fact, dear government scientist? If so, are you under the impression, that working people have no income?

      Do the working people living inside your head survive on government assistance or something?

    10. "and Stallone went back to Nam and killed some more in Rambo"

      In reality, the name wasn't Rambo, it was Brendon. He loves to tell this story.

    11. Stallone should have led an army of real-life Rambos back to reconquer Nam. But making movies was a lot safer.

    12. Actually, the US never "conquered" nam. They intervened in a civil war in which Ho Chi Minh was being opposed by forces in the South, with the backing of the French and then the US. Why we got involved is another matter, but we NEVER conquered anyone there. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the North won the civil war. Today Vietnam is a prosperous, beautiful country with an active tourist trade. You might try visiting it. Stallone is a fantasy that reflects toxic masculinity and our gun culture.

  2. This just can’t be correct. Surely there are laws enforcing strict accuracy requirements in all movies based on actual events. It’s a well known fact.

  3. “national editor Ben Bagdikian, portrayed by Bob Odenkirk, flew the Papers from Boston to Washington, D.C. with the cardboard box beside him. The Post purchased an empty seat next to him on the plane for the box, an "expense the Post didn't mind paying," Katharine Graham writes in her memoir Personal History.”

    “Concerned that some of the Post’s phones might be tapped and that there could be an FBI informant on the staff of the newspaper, Bagdikian later recounted, he quickly crossed the street to the Statler Hilton Hotel and its bank of pay phones. He dialed the number given on the note, and a voice said an old friend would call back on another public phone. Soon he was speaking with Ellsberg.”

    “he [Bagdikian] flew back to Washington on American Airlines Flight 287, also under the name Medford, according to Double Vision. He carried two boxes filled with thousands of pages of the study, fearing, as he recalled in the 2010 oral history, that if they spilled out at the airport, “the FBI would have me in hand immediately.”

    “Bagdikian promptly delivered the pages to the home of Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, where a team of reporters rushed to prepare articles in one room, while in the next editors argued with the newspaper’s lawyers, who warned against publishing in light of the injunction against the Times.”

    “Concerned”, “quickly”, “fearing”, “rushed to prepare”, “warned against publishing.”

    The movie isn’t depicting “stumblebums” or “silly moments.” It is depicting the rushed actions of people under duress and threat of legal action. The “silly moments” such as the ones above were the actual way the papers got from Ellsberg to the pages of the Post. They are of interest if you are interested in the actual human beings involved in publishing the pentagon papers.


  4. Spielberg is trying to appeal to a wide audience. To get the average movie goer interested in the story, about things that happened before many of them were born, he decided to provide a human face, the reporters, editors, and publishers and how the events affected them. He uses that as a way of getting the audience interested in the idea of a free press, of courageous reporters speaking truth to power. It’s an old-fashioned idea.

    It’s not an art film, it’s not a documentary. there may be some dramatic license, but it is a legitimate artistic attempt at dramatizing an important event and getting the audience to think about it.

    No one has to like the film, but I find Somerby’s criticisms miss the intent. That said, a valid attempt doesn’t mean that the movie ends up being outstanding. But nevertheless it is an old-fashioned type of movie-making that Spielberg is fond of, and I appreciate his effort.

  5. I guess Somerby never had the chance to be an intern. They get sent on lots of odd errands and given misc jobs that aren't anyone's actual responsibility. Someone trying to become a journalist might reasonably be given the chore of finding out obscure information, and if they fail there is nothing lost except someone's unpaid time. A prospective journalist interning with the head of a paper would be thrilled with the task and, of course, nervous about doing well.

    I consider Somerby's response to this film as a failure of empathy, that Somerby cannot put himself into Spielberg's shoes to understand why he made certain choices as a director, nor can he put himself into an intern's shoes to see how he might feel about being given an actual important task at investigative journalism. The work itself involves tracking down and interviewing people to gain specific information, so why not send the intern when no one else can be spared on a longshot hunch?

    It seems unlikely that Somerby has never been to New York City, but he must have dodged taxis in Boston. Pedestrians and bicyclists fend for themselves while cabs ignore them. Big city traffic is legendary. Did Somerby never see the scene in Midnight Cowboy where he is almost hit by a cab: "I'm walking here." It conveys the hustle and bustle of the city.

    Spielberg isn't my favorite director, but he isn't nearly as bad as Somerby describes here. I agree fully with mh's review.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. It may be that the lemonade stand and girl might have been intended to represent the naivete of the American public, the everyday people who were trusting their government and military but soon to be disillusioned.

    I tried to look for the film but they wanted $3+ to rent it, so I didn't bother. I did see it back when it came out and didn't have anything like Somerby's reaction about silliness. Back in the 1970s, I had just been hired into a job that required a security clearance at a new company formed by the physicists at the Rand Corporation, who left and took their contracts with them. I was unable to work for 6 months because that's how long it was taking to get a Top Secret clearance after Ellsworth's actions. So this was something that affected me personally, as well as opening the eyes of those still supporting the war, and hastening the end of it, which no doubt saved many lives.

    But that doesn't mean that reporters go around deadly serious because of the gravity of their work, nor does it mean that journalism is about war and not about deadlines and competition with other papers for scoops. Why should it be? Journalists focus on their job, not the world events they are reporting, or they wouldn't be objective observers much less write an even-handed report.

    Somerby would like to pretend that journalists are partisans, but that isn't what the job demands, nor is it the way journalistic ethnics demand the job be done. So these are people rushing around to meet a deadline, not people self-righteously proclaiming that LBJ did us wrong at every moment, and acting as protesters with Ellsberg's motives. Given that Somerby sees journalists as partisans (or wants us to see them that way), no wonder he objects to Spielberg's undoubtedly more realistic portrayal of this event.

    Recall that Somerby protested the war by teaching (without qualifications or training) deserving black kids in an inner-city Baltimore school to avoid the draft. My friends became conscientious objectors instead, and served their hitches emptying bedpans in a hospital and doing other forms of assigned community service.

    1. How did you work for the Rand Company when you reason like this?

      The Post is a movie. It’s a movie about a historical event. The director can emphasize any aspect of that time period. He doesn’t have to show the mechanics of journalism and of media outlets. He doesn’t have to portray journos as people focused more on the competitive challenges of the job rather than on politics. Somerby didn’t criticize any of that in the first place.

      The director COULD have focused on the way that the American people had been led down the garden path by people who had particular interests in doing such things. The director could have emphasized the direness of what was happening, had happened, because young men were on the line.

      That’s Somerby’s opinion of what was important about Watergate. You might not agree with it, but he’s not “wrong” in his approach to the seriousness of accurate facts and the soundness of that concern ought to be particularly apparent with what might have gone down in our recent history.

      It’s not preachy or incongruent in the context of the 70s that there be less “these people were regular people like us” in a time when literally everything is is political and politicized.

      Spielberg can take any approach he wants with his portrayal of an historical event, but it’s not an indication of a flawed character to judge his seriousness in light of current day concerns.

    2. Spielberg ought to be the director for Somerby. Old-fashioned liberal, humanistic values, depicting a world where the “gatekeepers” did their jobs. Spielberg is very pro-America, and pro-humanity, for that matter. He has funded Clint Eastwood projects (Flags of Our Fathers), and believes in the value of everyone. His movies frequently feature working class heroes treated with compassion. But Somerby is looking for liberals to criticize.

    3. "That’s Somerby’s opinion of what was important about Watergate."

      Watergate has nothing to do with The Post or anything else anyone has been talking about, including Somerby. You need to proofread your comments before submitting them. Otherwise you come across as Boebert-level stupid.

    4. I still don't understand what Somerby means when he calls the film not serious. I can see calling it corny or trite or even nostalgic, but why non-serious? Further, people apparently took it seriously -- would that be true if it were truly not serious? The film "Don't Look Up" is not being mistaken for a serious film anywhere. That isn't what The Post is like either. The review says it is rescued from mediocrity by transcendent acting. Does that sound non-serious to anyone here?

    5. Anonymouse 8:02pm, no amount of proofreading could keep you from sounding like a flying monkey.

    6. “But Somerby is looking for liberals to criticize.”

      That’s not hard work.

    7. Spielberg shouldn’t be one of them is my point. He is precisely the kind of liberal that Somerby claims to miss nowadays.

    8. Bro. Somerby criticized a movie Spielberg made.

    9. Cecelia, if you aren't interested in today's discussion, just close your mouth and go watch TV or something.

    10. Anonymouse 11:10pm, I am interested in discussion. That’s why I don’t tell people to shut up and it’s why I am not an anonymouse.

    11. It's also why she never makes good faith arguments.
      Oops. My bad. She never makes good faith arguments, because she's a Right-winger, not because she's interested in discussion.

  8. One of the best things about losing the Hispanics is we never represented them sincerely anyway. See MSNBC and the DNC's lack of representation. No Hispanics to be found anywhere.

    1. Do you think representation is just about brown faces on cable? Hispanic people have issues and the Republicans have no platform whatsoever.

    2. "Hispanic people have issues"

      Now, that's a plainly racist thing to say, dear government scientist.

      May we ask: when was your last diversity training? We have a terrible suspicion that it was a very long time ago. Days, probably, if not a whole week.

    3. I'm just saying taking them for granted is totally paying off now that they've left.

    4. Hispanics are Left. I read it on TDH.

  9. Meanwhile, here at home:

    "“The Defense Department wiped the phones of top departing DOD and Army officials at the end of the Trump administration, deleting any texts from key witnesses to events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol,” CNN reports."

    1. Holy pretending to care about Hillary Clinton’s email protocols.
      This is going to piss off every Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.
      I’d love to see the head of the Pentagon’s face when all zero of those Republican voters come after him.

  10. There is a review and critique of this movie that is superior to Somerby’s on the IMDB site under the title "Let's Publish!"by lavatch17 April 2018:

    Because this shallow film focuses on the relatively insignificant backstory of the publication of the documents, it misses other vital issues about the role of Ellsberg in stealing and leaking. Ellsberg is implicitly portrayed as a hero. But shouldn't Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning also be heroes? The film doesn't have enough courage to tackle that question.
    In the bonus segment of the DVD, it was revealed that Ellsberg himself met with Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. The DVD commentary discloses that Ellsberg was a Marine who had been on the ground in Vietnam to observe the quagmire in progress. His first-hand observations are captured in the best scene in the film in the opening sequence in Hau Nghia Province. But the film did not go far enough in revealing that Ellsberg potentially faced a 100+ year prison sentence under the 1917 Espionage Act.
    Sadly, Ellsberg's story is merely window dressing for the glorification of the saintly publishers. The filmmakers missed a golden opportunity by failing to capture the dramatic moment when the documents that Ellsberg stole were read into the record of the United States Senate by Sen. Mike Gravel. More than 4,000 pages of the 7,000-page Pentagon Papers were part of the Senate record, which meant that any publisher could print them without fear of any legal retribution. Thus, the real hero in revealing the truth to the American public was Mike Gravel, not Ben Bradlee or Kay Graham.
    The manipulation of public opinion and the lies of propaganda should have been the focus of "The Post," not the romanticizing of newspaper people.

    1. This is a complaint that the film wasn't about what the commenter thought it should be about. It is the director and writer's choice to decide what to make a film about. Films should be judged based on their own intentions, not what viewers might have preferred to see.

      And yes, this is a film about journalism, not the war and not Ellsberg and not whistleblowing in general. You can make a case that Gravel wouldn't have done anything if the papers had not already published the documents.

    2. You might think the title (the Post) was kind of a clue about the subject matter.

    3. There was no journalism without Ellsberg risking life in prison. Why filmmakers choose to focus on and what they choose to ignore or deemphasize regarding historical events is the most interest question.

    4. You could also say there is no journalism unless a building burns down or a their steals something valuable or a politician is corrupt. These events get reported too, because journalism exists not to laud but to describe what has happened.

      Ellsberg is controversial. Spielberg didn't deal with that controversy. Instead, he explored the importance of a free press to democracy. That is a hugely important message today, much more important than Ellsberg's activities. In fact, it is such an important issue that Somerby hasn't got a clue why and how journalists support our democratic system. And he watched the movie and still didn't have a clue -- because he was too focused on trivia such as lemonade stands and interns. And he apparently thinks his readers should be similarly diverted from Spielberg's message -- which is that journalism matters and is essential to the functioning of a democratic system. Ellsberg helped end the Vietnam war, but it is hard to argue that his role was more important than our democracy itself, which is NOW in peril. You only have to look at Fox News to see what happens when journalists stop doing their jobs properly. But Somerby is focused on what he calls silliness. Is there a larger buffoon on our planet?

    5. Look, Democrats don't have any problems. We have a great team. We have a brilliant 90-year-old leader, a vice president who's so popular and inspiring. We have advocates in the media who people love and admire including those trustworthy patriotic ex heads CIA and FBI and we still have dozens of Hispanics who support us with fervent vigor. And the policies. Oh, the policies. Who could say that we are not at the party of the future?

    6. And you have Trump…

    7. I agree with 644 about 'both sides".

    8. Policies?
      You aren't going to win over "the Others" with policies. You win them over by being a bigot.

    9. So, not about the fact that our government institutions, like the DHS and Secret Service, has made it plain they will not stand in the way of a fascist takeover of the nation?

    10. 8:08,
      You fallen for the oldest trick in the book; believing Right-wing bullshit.
      Pro tip:
      You should really be more discriminating about who you believe.

    11. Look who's talking.

  11. Going to a movie called “The Post” and being disappointed that it was about the , um, (Washington) Post, is kind of like being upset that Jaws wasn’t about bears. Can’t fix stupid.

  12. I recall that the late Alex Cockburn said that after
    Watergate, Kay Graham gave a speech the thrust of which was,( far from suggesting the Post had created something to
    build on as far as government accountability went) that
    the Press must remember to stay in it's lane and not get
    too uppity. I always took Cockburn with a grain of salt,
    but that has haunted me a bit as we devolved into
    almost pure infotainment. On the other hand, Jack
    Anderson, who had been the star bur under Nixon's
    saddle for years. Bitter that he had missed the
    Watergate story, Anderson became a sleazebo hot dog at
    reactionary ABC News, writing all kinds of pure garbage
    about Jimmy Carter until he wasn't taken seriously
    No one that I know has asked, in any kind of serious
    way "How did the Press actually do on Trump?" There
    are goof balls who talk about the deep state on the right
    and the endless back slapping over at MSNBC, and
    not much in the way of insightful middle ground.
    Do we accept the excuse given for never landing
    a serious glove on him ("There was just too much, there
    was something new every day!), often as seemingly
    compliant as Bill Maher interviewing Kellyanne Conway?
    Could the ratings bonanza created by those who loved
    him and those who hated him really passed without
    notice? Was Les Moonves ("He may not be good for
    America but it's damn good for CBS") the only honest
    man in the business? Would Trump Tweets even
    have been an issue if each one hadn't been treated
    as a big news story?
    Somewhere in an unforeseeable future, with some
    unimaginable reawakening of real seriousness( not whatever it
    is Bob yearns for, these questions may be explored,
    along with the mostly ignored subject of Trump's
    damage to our institutions and level of common
    decency. Were Men like Bob Somerby literally paid
    to adopt a "move on, nothing to see here" attitude?
    Hard to miss that if President Trump had actually
    taken his job seriously beyond rolling out of bed
    and blabbing on Fox, he might have worked with
    the CIA to get Ayman al-Zawahri and would now
    be enshrined as a God.

  13. This blog post, about a purported “clownish” treatment of a serious historical topic emanates from a man who thinks public school students should be taught a whitewashed version of American history.

    1. History doesn't have a slant if you look at original sources and academic historians and not propagandists. There is such a thing as truth. There are also people dedicated to understanding the truth. Unfortunately, these people are not being allowed into classrooms because there are Republicans who prefer their pleasing narratives. Haven't you learned anything at all from Somerby?

    2. If the citizens, that you want in school systems, are banned from the classrooms of today, then it’s because they are people whose pictures are featured on various criminal registries.

      Thank goodness for that much, anyway.

    3. Meanwhile you thinkEllsberg has something to do with Watergate.

    4. No, I think the WP did and Nixon did. It was a reference to the seriousness of the entire era.

    5. Ellsberg most certainly did have something to do with Watergate. The break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist was one count of Article 2 of the impeachment.

      He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

    6. I'll bow to Cecelia's inside knowledge of the workings of the KKK.

    7. Wikipedia’s lengthy article on Watergate never mentions Ellsberg.

    8. Anonymouse 20:37am, I mentioned the Klan and the Nation of Islam in ode to their philosophical brethren who want to indoctrinate kids.

    9. Anonymouse20:37am, it was a reference to an era where the rose-colored glasses came off about government with the war and political scandal.

      Rein in your inner putz for a moment, please.

    10. 11:04, you're really stupid, you know that?

      The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers, were a secret White House group led by G. Gordon Liddy. They were established July 24, 1971, during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to find out who was giving out classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers, to the news media. They began using illegal methods while working for the Committee to Re-elect the President. This included the infamous Watergate break-in and the Watergate scandal that followed.[1],Papers%2C%20to%20the%20news%20media.

      Don't be such an ass. Ellsberg was literally the prime motivation for the Nixon WH to create the
      "Plumbers" who ended up breaking into the DNC office in the Watergate.

  14. In order to believe the Republican Party wants to ban all abortions, you have to be a Democrat. Or a Republican. Or a member of any other political party.
    Or someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics at all.

  15. As usual, Somerby takes a shit and calls it a blog post.

    1. Bob's blogpost is polling as the leader to be the Republican Party's 2024 Presidential nominee.