That's the only explanation for his constant squalling from the crib.
Rachel Maddow is far from perfect (I'm probably at least equally as far -- if not further) but when she does something strong, I will applaud her for it (usually in a TV piece Ava and I write for Third).
Bob never does.
And I'm glad to have helped him as much as I have.
"Narrative"?
We explained it here for him and now he uses that term and even applies it properly.
You're welcome, Bob.
And we're the ones who steered him towards Rachel's bungled facts (which go back to UNFILTERED and her need to present days old articles in THE WASHINGTON POST as something in today's POST).
Again, Bob, you're welcome.
No need to publicly thank or credit, just keep your drunken friend away from me (and away from Rebecca whom he tried to stalk).
Oh, the stories we could tell -- as Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers love to announce (it's a Jimmy Buffett song).
And maybe someday will.
But Bob's always castigating Rachel for getting this or that wrong.
Am I the only one noticing that for the last four weeks, his never-ending sexism has included a huge struggle with gender pronouns?
No one else catching how, repeatedly, he's using "she" and "he" in the same posts to refer to a woman?
Again, repeatedly.
But his big problem today is reading is hard for Bob.
Betsy Woodruff is his target today.
For an article she wrote.
He doesn't link to the article.
But what he's quoting from is an article at least three community sites linked to last night.
Hillary's humiliation
5 hours ago
Here's Mike:
She lost New Hampshire tonight.
And THE DAILY BEAST captures her humiliation:
And THE DAILY BEAST captures her humiliation:
Supporters
on risers inside the venue did their best to keep the crowd’s spirit up
before Clinton arrived, clapping to Taylor Swift’s “Shake it Off” and
periodically chanting, “I believe that she will win!”
(She, of course, did not.)
The
Clinton campaign had planned for this loss, of course - the
expectations were lowered weeks ago. After all, Clinton hadn’t led
Sanders in any poll since the first week of January, when a Public
Policy Poll had her by three points, 47 to 44 percent.
The
message has shifted as the polling worsened. In an appearance in
Manchester on Monday, President Bill Clinton insisted that his wife was
not part of the establishment - a particularly curious statement since,
well, they were uttered by a Clinton about a Clinton. (An
anti-establishment former president? Come on.)
When big mouths backfire
5 hours ago
Here's Elaine:
Marilyn
DeLuca, of Londonderry N.H., also said Sanders is “the only candidate
out there” with integrity. And she wasn’t exactly enthralled by
Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem’s goofy arguments that women are obligated to back Clinton.
“They’re irrelevant,” DeLuca said. “Their time has come and gone.”
“I have two daughters in their twenties,” she added, “and they were so angry when they heard that.”
[. . .]Young women voters who spoke with The Daily Beast outside of polls shared their sentiments: that Steinem and Albright only energized the young women who back Bernie.
Betsy Woodruff and Jackie Kucinich (Daily Beast) report:
Hundreds
of Bernie Sanders’ supporters packed into a high school gym here --
after waiting outside in frigid temperatures to file through metal
detectors one-by-one -- to celebrate his big win.
Meanwhile, about twenty miles away, a loyal crowd tried to keep its
collective chin up as Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the first
Democratic primary contest.
The contrast highlights just how much damage Sanders
is doing to Clinton’s campaign. Even though he’s still a longshot to
snag the nomination, his candidacy is persuading young voters, women,
and progressives that Clinton is in the pocket of big banks and corrupt
corporations -- and it’s persuading Clinton’s own supporters that
they’re on the sadder side of this contest.
Here's Bob:
To understand where this sort of thing leads, consider the horrific news in a new Daily Beast piece by Betsy Woodruff, a 25-year-old (former) movement conservative who now appears on the Chris Hayes show in the guise of whatever we're supposed to take her to be at this point.
Maybe he omitted Jackie Kucinich because he couldn't smear her as "(former) movement conservative"?
At any rate, Mike credited the publication. Fine. Elaine and Trina credited the two writers -- two, Bob. And Bob Somerby turned it into a solo piece.
And he who demands corrections of Rachel Maddow and others will do no corrections of his own.
But that's a given and not worthy of even a comment by itself.
The reason we're commenting today?
He's bothered (briefly) by a SALON article. Haven't read it, don't care to, life is short.
And he's whining that this article is going to cost Democrats the election, it's unfair, he whines.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Again, I truly do not care.
But he then moves on to Woodruff's article (Woodruff and Kucinich's report) and whines about the damage this is doing to poor, poor pitiful Hillary.
By quoting Bernie supporters?
That's what they think.
It's called free speech.
He's an idiot.
A damn fool.
And what he's advocating is self-censorship throughout an electoral campaign.
He's a damn fool.
He's also sliming Bernie by saying the supporters are repeating what Bernie's said.
No, they're not.
He's clearly developing a rash on his little hiney from being in his dirty diaper for so long.
I'm not touching it.
But maybe someone who's still capable of feeling pity for Bob can change it?
And when they do, maybe they can ask Bob if he's ever going to hold Hillary accountable for her Iraq War vote or just continue to pretend like it was nothing?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
