Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Chron and Their Pseudo-Liberal Viewpoints.
The Chron is a right wing rag, a Fox-News-Lite-on-Paper, as we've documented quite extensively here. The "liberal" columnist was Jon Carroll, at least when Phil Bronstein edited the paper. He vehemently opposed bringing another voice on board, that of former mayor Willie Brown. Then Ward Bushee became editor and Willie became a columnist for the Chron.
But there's no fear that, even though he's registered Democrat, Willie would bring a progressive perspective to the newspaper. Willie's voice is fresh and funny, but a liberal advocate he is not. Today we get:
Here's an economic indicator you won't see on the business pages - the big parties are back...
Gordon Getty pulled the plug last year on his annual combination birthday and Christmas party. This year, it's on.
Dede Wilsey is readying the retractable roof of her home for her annual winter wonderland...
Some may resent the return of pre-meltdown parties, but remember - they're a healthy boost to the hundreds of waiters, bartenders, caterers, entertainers, valet car parkers and everyone else who makes a living in the hospitality business in the city.
Even the Chron liberal columnists advocate Reaganite trickle-down rising-tide-lift-all-boats economics. What's good for Dede is good for SF.
Oh boy.
But there's no fear that, even though he's registered Democrat, Willie would bring a progressive perspective to the newspaper. Willie's voice is fresh and funny, but a liberal advocate he is not. Today we get:
Here's an economic indicator you won't see on the business pages - the big parties are back...
Gordon Getty pulled the plug last year on his annual combination birthday and Christmas party. This year, it's on.
Dede Wilsey is readying the retractable roof of her home for her annual winter wonderland...
Some may resent the return of pre-meltdown parties, but remember - they're a healthy boost to the hundreds of waiters, bartenders, caterers, entertainers, valet car parkers and everyone else who makes a living in the hospitality business in the city.
Even the Chron liberal columnists advocate Reaganite trickle-down rising-tide-lift-all-boats economics. What's good for Dede is good for SF.
Oh boy.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
How stupid can BHL be?
BHL, that's Bernard Henri-Levy, a French "intellectual" who writes essays and editorials and wears dark long hair and a white shirt with the top three buttons open. The guy is a joke, but for some reasons that I can't fathom, is taken seriously in some Parisian circles. He wrote a book on America, as an homage to Tocqueville, which was a dud. I regret reading the whole thing, I tell you, but I was hoping a glimmer of intelligence would be in there, if I kept trudging. Nope.
Anyhow, he wrote yesterday an oped for the Huffington post:
The decision to free Roman Polanski is a wise decision. It honors the people who took it...I am thinking about....his wife...about his two kids who saw their dad's name ignominiously dragged through the mud. I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski,... whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped ...asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthy era all over again.
Hey, BHL, Polanski is guilty, and flew to France to avoid going to prison. So there's no need to "repair the days spent in prison," he should actually stay in there longer if justice was ever served. So there is no "injustice" in him going to prison. And his name in the mud? He's guilty! Nobody is sullying his reputation. And McCarthy era? The accusations are not false and politically guided, he's guilty!
BHL's byline says "French philosopher and writer." Which allows me to call myself: BSF, French philosopher too, for Blog de SF, and obviously the bar to obtain this shiny philosopher title is quite low. If there is an immense, unbelievable injustice, it's that anyone takes BHL seriously.
Anyhow, he wrote yesterday an oped for the Huffington post:
The decision to free Roman Polanski is a wise decision. It honors the people who took it...I am thinking about....his wife...about his two kids who saw their dad's name ignominiously dragged through the mud. I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski,... whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped ...asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthy era all over again.
Hey, BHL, Polanski is guilty, and flew to France to avoid going to prison. So there's no need to "repair the days spent in prison," he should actually stay in there longer if justice was ever served. So there is no "injustice" in him going to prison. And his name in the mud? He's guilty! Nobody is sullying his reputation. And McCarthy era? The accusations are not false and politically guided, he's guilty!
BHL's byline says "French philosopher and writer." Which allows me to call myself: BSF, French philosopher too, for Blog de SF, and obviously the bar to obtain this shiny philosopher title is quite low. If there is an immense, unbelievable injustice, it's that anyone takes BHL seriously.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Phil Bronstein, Hypocrite.
Phil Bronstein writes about Gavin Newsom and the press.
First, Phil Bronstein should be disqualified from writing on the topic. This is a guy who, since Gavin entered the Gov race, has been spewing venom at the mayor (calling him a cheap phony Vuitton knock-off) and fomenting made up controversies (looking in Gavin's trash bin to see if the mayor does compost; calling Gavin responsible (and at odds with his pro-environment stance) for leaky sprinklers in Golden Gate. Yes, no straw was too ridiculous for Phil to grasp on.
Today's outrage is:
A friend of mine connected to KTVU tells me Gavin had wanted to go on Channel 2 this morning to talk about MUNI, but only on the condition he not be asked about anything else. Even George Bush subjected himself to Helen Thomas' pounding once in a while as part of the often contentious press-politician compact.
What Phil does not say: that Gavin had just been ambushed, and burned, by an interview on CBS5 where the subject was supposed to be the city budget, and where the interviewer focused solely on Gavin's trip to Hawaii.
Second, Phil praises Bush (of course) and conveniently forgets that George Bush had Jeff Gannon, a male hooker accredited as a journalist just to send him softball question; and that Bush demoted Helen Thomas from her front row seat to the back of the press room (he also snubbed her in the final presser). In other words: unlike what Phil hints, Gavin is a choir boy at avoiding the press compared to Bush.
Third, a friend of Phil knows someone at KTVU. Phil says: "a friend of mine connected to KTVU," not "working at KTVU". So he is building his post on twice removed hearsay. He heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but it's definitely uncorroborated at this point. And this is linked from the front page at SFgate.com! Maybe what Phil says is true; or maybe someone from the city hall press office wanted to schedule something with KTVU but wanted to avoid another embarrassment to his boss (I conduct interviews quite regularly, and I never ever set it up directly with the personality, it's always through press and PR reps.) Or maybe the story just got embellished in between the different "friend" intermediaries. The point is: Phil never says there might be no story there whatsoever. This is striking to me since Phil used to edit the Chron, so knows all about policies regarding cross checking sources, and hearsay. Or he knows nothing about them, and what this guy was doing editing the newspaper is anyone's guess.
Fourth, this made me cringe on so many levels:
But let's take Willie Brown's Chronicle column last Sunday where he essentially called Gavin a wuss. Willie said to a whining Gavin that he had gotten much more guff from journalists in his day. And we did hammer the former Mayor far harder than we have the current one. That's the way it goes, and should go in the natural, adversarial relationship between the press and public officials.
Here's Phil quoting Willie's column, whereas Phil did not want Willie to write a column for the Chron (he opposed it, but his successor made it happen). Then, the relationship should be adversarial for a reason, not just out of spite. Phil's paper was not adversarial with public officials in the Bush administration, for some reason. And if there's an adversarial relationship, it should be an honest fight, not the dirty fight that Phil is illustrating by posting what is basically a poorly sourced rumor right now. But Phil is praising his own work as some ethical journalism! Right in a piece sourced on hearsay! Talk about confused.
First, Phil Bronstein should be disqualified from writing on the topic. This is a guy who, since Gavin entered the Gov race, has been spewing venom at the mayor (calling him a cheap phony Vuitton knock-off) and fomenting made up controversies (looking in Gavin's trash bin to see if the mayor does compost; calling Gavin responsible (and at odds with his pro-environment stance) for leaky sprinklers in Golden Gate. Yes, no straw was too ridiculous for Phil to grasp on.
Today's outrage is:
A friend of mine connected to KTVU tells me Gavin had wanted to go on Channel 2 this morning to talk about MUNI, but only on the condition he not be asked about anything else. Even George Bush subjected himself to Helen Thomas' pounding once in a while as part of the often contentious press-politician compact.
What Phil does not say: that Gavin had just been ambushed, and burned, by an interview on CBS5 where the subject was supposed to be the city budget, and where the interviewer focused solely on Gavin's trip to Hawaii.
Second, Phil praises Bush (of course) and conveniently forgets that George Bush had Jeff Gannon, a male hooker accredited as a journalist just to send him softball question; and that Bush demoted Helen Thomas from her front row seat to the back of the press room (he also snubbed her in the final presser). In other words: unlike what Phil hints, Gavin is a choir boy at avoiding the press compared to Bush.
Third, a friend of Phil knows someone at KTVU. Phil says: "a friend of mine connected to KTVU," not "working at KTVU". So he is building his post on twice removed hearsay. He heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but it's definitely uncorroborated at this point. And this is linked from the front page at SFgate.com! Maybe what Phil says is true; or maybe someone from the city hall press office wanted to schedule something with KTVU but wanted to avoid another embarrassment to his boss (I conduct interviews quite regularly, and I never ever set it up directly with the personality, it's always through press and PR reps.) Or maybe the story just got embellished in between the different "friend" intermediaries. The point is: Phil never says there might be no story there whatsoever. This is striking to me since Phil used to edit the Chron, so knows all about policies regarding cross checking sources, and hearsay. Or he knows nothing about them, and what this guy was doing editing the newspaper is anyone's guess.
Fourth, this made me cringe on so many levels:
But let's take Willie Brown's Chronicle column last Sunday where he essentially called Gavin a wuss. Willie said to a whining Gavin that he had gotten much more guff from journalists in his day. And we did hammer the former Mayor far harder than we have the current one. That's the way it goes, and should go in the natural, adversarial relationship between the press and public officials.
Here's Phil quoting Willie's column, whereas Phil did not want Willie to write a column for the Chron (he opposed it, but his successor made it happen). Then, the relationship should be adversarial for a reason, not just out of spite. Phil's paper was not adversarial with public officials in the Bush administration, for some reason. And if there's an adversarial relationship, it should be an honest fight, not the dirty fight that Phil is illustrating by posting what is basically a poorly sourced rumor right now. But Phil is praising his own work as some ethical journalism! Right in a piece sourced on hearsay! Talk about confused.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Can Phil Bronstein Really Be So Dim Witted?
Phil Bronstein, unaware he's probing the depths of a sad irony:
Not every president in the last 35 years has considered Richard Nixon a role model. But our current POTUS seems to.
When the darkly fascinating Mr. Nixon declared Charles Manson guilty of murder before that 1970 trial was over, there was only a small intake of national breath. What about that whole innocent-until-proven-otherwise thing that's woven into our national fabric?
...But now we've got Barack Obama judging Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty of the 9/11 crimes before the system Mr. Obama is supposed to uphold even brings the guy to court.
So Obama is taking Nixon as a role model, because KSM will get a trial. A trial which was denied to him and others by the previous administration. Bush created Guantanamo to just hold these guys guilty-until-never-proven-either-way, just guilty without a trial, guilty with confessions obtained through torture, guilty just because W said so, guilty because Karl Rove needed "results" in the war on terror to publicize to the media and sell his president.
Obama is doing the honorable thing, the thing that IS woven into the national fabric. Obama respects habeas corpus, and Bronstein is calling him Nixonian.
The same Bronstein who favored Bush; whose paper (he was editor-in-chief at the time) favored the war in Iraq; whose paper never investigated the lies that led to the Iraq war, nor the torture conducted in the name of this country, nor the domestic wiretaps of US citizen, nor extraordinary rendition. Bronstein, who enabled Guanatamo, in other words...
There is no low low enough for Phil Bronstein.
Not every president in the last 35 years has considered Richard Nixon a role model. But our current POTUS seems to.
When the darkly fascinating Mr. Nixon declared Charles Manson guilty of murder before that 1970 trial was over, there was only a small intake of national breath. What about that whole innocent-until-proven-otherwise thing that's woven into our national fabric?
...But now we've got Barack Obama judging Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty of the 9/11 crimes before the system Mr. Obama is supposed to uphold even brings the guy to court.
So Obama is taking Nixon as a role model, because KSM will get a trial. A trial which was denied to him and others by the previous administration. Bush created Guantanamo to just hold these guys guilty-until-never-proven-either-way, just guilty without a trial, guilty with confessions obtained through torture, guilty just because W said so, guilty because Karl Rove needed "results" in the war on terror to publicize to the media and sell his president.
Obama is doing the honorable thing, the thing that IS woven into the national fabric. Obama respects habeas corpus, and Bronstein is calling him Nixonian.
The same Bronstein who favored Bush; whose paper (he was editor-in-chief at the time) favored the war in Iraq; whose paper never investigated the lies that led to the Iraq war, nor the torture conducted in the name of this country, nor the domestic wiretaps of US citizen, nor extraordinary rendition. Bronstein, who enabled Guanatamo, in other words...
There is no low low enough for Phil Bronstein.
The Chron Can't Smell BS...
Carla Marinucci uncovers a vast, sophisticated conspiracy to ruin the GOP...
Democratic strategist Garry South says Palin has won the undying support of many of his party's faithful, who are doing all they can to keep her in the spotlight of the national stage.
"I see Democrats at bookstores buying her books by the dozens and trying to keep the book tour going," he said. "She's a magnet for controversy - and that's not what the Republicans need right now."
Yeah, right. Garry South goes to bookstores, many bookstores, in L.A., where they're all conveniently close by; there he notices Democrats (recognizable by their birkenstocks, their take-out sushi bento box, and the dangling volvo car keys) buying books by the dozens (one dozen books is a two feet tall pile). Carla: Garry South is feeding you bullshit. Actually, I'm pretty sure you know it, and feeding it back to your readers anyway.
Why? Because Sarah Palin's book is a best seller for a whole different reason, and Carla don't want you to know that explanation. Namely, that there is no concerted effort by Democrats to prop up Palin's book sales, but there is one by the Republicans and the right wing machine. Look here for instance how the Republican Governor association purchased books by "the thousands" (take that, Garry South) with a special discount negotiated with Sarah!
Palin's book is "#1 on Amazon" as Carla does mention, but for this reason: it's sold at a 69% discount already! $9.00! Someone is losing money on this book to prop it up the book charts, but that's not Democrats...
Democratic strategist Garry South says Palin has won the undying support of many of his party's faithful, who are doing all they can to keep her in the spotlight of the national stage.
"I see Democrats at bookstores buying her books by the dozens and trying to keep the book tour going," he said. "She's a magnet for controversy - and that's not what the Republicans need right now."
Yeah, right. Garry South goes to bookstores, many bookstores, in L.A., where they're all conveniently close by; there he notices Democrats (recognizable by their birkenstocks, their take-out sushi bento box, and the dangling volvo car keys) buying books by the dozens (one dozen books is a two feet tall pile). Carla: Garry South is feeding you bullshit. Actually, I'm pretty sure you know it, and feeding it back to your readers anyway.
Why? Because Sarah Palin's book is a best seller for a whole different reason, and Carla don't want you to know that explanation. Namely, that there is no concerted effort by Democrats to prop up Palin's book sales, but there is one by the Republicans and the right wing machine. Look here for instance how the Republican Governor association purchased books by "the thousands" (take that, Garry South) with a special discount negotiated with Sarah!
Palin's book is "#1 on Amazon" as Carla does mention, but for this reason: it's sold at a 69% discount already! $9.00! Someone is losing money on this book to prop it up the book charts, but that's not Democrats...
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Did Phil Faint?
Phil Bronstein wrote this terrible piece, which got unanimous comments at sfgate. One of them which captured accurately the vibe was along the lines of:
Bush: zombie. Obama: vampire. Bronstein: idiot
We wrote our own little comment, similar in essence to the post linked above (or situated just below), which was among the most popular comments for a while. We were flattered, even though there were only a handful of comments (honestly, nobody cares about what Phil writes unless they display it prominently on the main sfgate.com page).
But now, no comments, zilch, nada. And if you try to insert a new comment, you get an error message. Connection reset.
So we're curious. Did the pointed comments tickle Phil enough that he had them removed? If that's a technical issue, how come it's happening to this little commented page and not to the rest? Is the page now closed to comment?
Come on, Phil, the premise of the piece (Bush: zombie. Obama: vampire. Bronstein: idiot) is ridiculous enough that you did not expect to be praised for it, didn't you? Plus, the right wingers whose approval you were fishing for, you have to give them a little time, they don't work on all cylinders, you now.
Bush: zombie. Obama: vampire. Bronstein: idiot
We wrote our own little comment, similar in essence to the post linked above (or situated just below), which was among the most popular comments for a while. We were flattered, even though there were only a handful of comments (honestly, nobody cares about what Phil writes unless they display it prominently on the main sfgate.com page).
But now, no comments, zilch, nada. And if you try to insert a new comment, you get an error message. Connection reset.
So we're curious. Did the pointed comments tickle Phil enough that he had them removed? If that's a technical issue, how come it's happening to this little commented page and not to the rest? Is the page now closed to comment?
Come on, Phil, the premise of the piece (Bush: zombie. Obama: vampire. Bronstein: idiot) is ridiculous enough that you did not expect to be praised for it, didn't you? Plus, the right wingers whose approval you were fishing for, you have to give them a little time, they don't work on all cylinders, you now.
Monday, November 16, 2009
If there was any doubt Phil Bronstein is a Republican...
In today's Phil Bronstein's column:
Sure enough, [Obama] lured us in with his charm, his looks, his intensity and a certain languid but magnetic sense of power. Since then, he's wanted to tax and spend us dry while injecting his own federalist serum into our veins.
Obama has wanted to "tax and spend us dry"? Phil sure sounds like Sarah Palin, doesn't he?
In the real world, Obama has passed the America Re-investment and Recovery Act, which is the quicketst and broadest tax cut ever.
As far as spending, yes, Obama has to spend to get the economy stimulated thanks to the sucky economy left behind by Bronstein's darling, George W. Bush.
Taxes and big government can look appealing to some, but will it end up killing us?
Well, we try the opposite, tax cuts and small government for the last eight years, but obviously Phil was asleep during that decade. So he missed the results of that. Phil: it did not "kill us," but we're still mopping that mess. Maybe if you read the news, you'd have known about that.
Sure enough, [Obama] lured us in with his charm, his looks, his intensity and a certain languid but magnetic sense of power. Since then, he's wanted to tax and spend us dry while injecting his own federalist serum into our veins.
Obama has wanted to "tax and spend us dry"? Phil sure sounds like Sarah Palin, doesn't he?
In the real world, Obama has passed the America Re-investment and Recovery Act, which is the quicketst and broadest tax cut ever.
As far as spending, yes, Obama has to spend to get the economy stimulated thanks to the sucky economy left behind by Bronstein's darling, George W. Bush.
Taxes and big government can look appealing to some, but will it end up killing us?
Well, we try the opposite, tax cuts and small government for the last eight years, but obviously Phil was asleep during that decade. So he missed the results of that. Phil: it did not "kill us," but we're still mopping that mess. Maybe if you read the news, you'd have known about that.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Chron Warped Values.
You got to love the Chronicle's sense of perspective.
Giants prospect loses U.S. visa
Angel Villalona is stripped of his U.S. visa after he was charged with killing a man in the Dominican Republic.
The guy killed a man, but what matters is that he lost his visa?
Has the Chron any decency left?
Giants prospect loses U.S. visa
Angel Villalona is stripped of his U.S. visa after he was charged with killing a man in the Dominican Republic.
The guy killed a man, but what matters is that he lost his visa?
Has the Chron any decency left?
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Phil and the Clintons.
A couple posts below, I reacted to a silly blog post by Phil on the topic of the Clinton marriage. But I missed the most controversial aspect of it:
Not enough action for the Secretary of State? She then goes to the Mideast and high fives the Israelis for slowing down West Bank Settlements, infuriating the Palestinian leadership. So much for the Obama tilt toward the Muslim world.
This all seems less like the arrogance and repressed anger of the old Hillary and more like a tough, independent-minded superstar.
Hillary had to walk back the "high fives" today in Marrakesh and re-iterate that Obama's policy had not changed toward the Muslim world.
But look at what Bronstein is admiring here: she's a "tough superstar" because she is pissing off the Muslim world.
Bronstein is not only a conservative, he is a neo-con!
Not enough action for the Secretary of State? She then goes to the Mideast and high fives the Israelis for slowing down West Bank Settlements, infuriating the Palestinian leadership. So much for the Obama tilt toward the Muslim world.
This all seems less like the arrogance and repressed anger of the old Hillary and more like a tough, independent-minded superstar.
Hillary had to walk back the "high fives" today in Marrakesh and re-iterate that Obama's policy had not changed toward the Muslim world.
But look at what Bronstein is admiring here: she's a "tough superstar" because she is pissing off the Muslim world.
Bronstein is not only a conservative, he is a neo-con!
Oh No! Please, Meredith, Don't Go!
We have laid off the Meredith beat for quite some while, for over a year actually.
So we cannot feel responsible for the SF Weekly parting ways with her. Actually, we feel a little sad. Lately, she had pointed me to some interesting places: a Korean restaurant in the Richmond or a Chinese restaurant on Ocean ave.
My last reviews of her reviews were that she had turned into a good food critic. Well, that's not what the Weekly wanted. Shame on them.
[update] What if we're responsible for this, though? What if the SF Weekly refused to fire her for years because it would validate her crusade, they'd be giving in to a lowly blogger; and a year after we gave up, now that we actually appreciate her, then they do it.
So we cannot feel responsible for the SF Weekly parting ways with her. Actually, we feel a little sad. Lately, she had pointed me to some interesting places: a Korean restaurant in the Richmond or a Chinese restaurant on Ocean ave.
My last reviews of her reviews were that she had turned into a good food critic. Well, that's not what the Weekly wanted. Shame on them.
[update] What if we're responsible for this, though? What if the SF Weekly refused to fire her for years because it would validate her crusade, they'd be giving in to a lowly blogger; and a year after we gave up, now that we actually appreciate her, then they do it.
Monday, November 02, 2009
This Guy Edited the Chron During the Clinton Years?
Phil Bronstein is a mystery to us: on his blog and his Monday column, we have yet to find an interesting idea. One. Single. Fresh. Smart. Novel. Idea. Part of it is that we don't share the same viewpoint, Phil is a conservative, but there are still people whom I don't agree with who can write with some substance and who can interest us on some topics. Not Phil.
Today, he delves into one of his favorite topics: the state of the Clinton's marriage. I know, reaction range from the bored ("come on, the 90s are over.") to the ironic ("Phil has a pulse on his readership, doesn't he") to the angry ("the journalists' obsession with Clinton's marriage is arguably what brought upon us the Bush disaster, how can you be still so blind, Phil").
But mostly, the reaction is confusion. Writes Phil:
The Clinton marriage is probably less of a negotiation than a long-term range war (not without genuine affection.) But surveying the battlefield, it's clear that Hillary has advanced her public personality position way ahead of his.
That just does not make any sense. Phil confuses the private and the public (again), and tries to infer from the public success of either Clinton signs of private tension and competition at home. To be blunt, if that's how Phil views marriage, that's a sign of some very insecure man who cannot share in the success of his partner. Phil's own marriages have already ended in failure like three times, gee, we wonder why...
If Bronstein was just any blogger, I doubt anyone would care. But this guy used to edit the Chronicle. This guy, who has a pathological emotional attachment to the Clinton, edited the coverage of the newspaper. I find it fascinating that someone with such stale wisdom and who can't write a lick, would rise to this position. I don't find it surprising that he was at the helm when the Chron missed the digital revolution, though: it's 2009 and he's still looking backward towards the Clinton years. If someone would miss the boat, that would be him.
Today, he delves into one of his favorite topics: the state of the Clinton's marriage. I know, reaction range from the bored ("come on, the 90s are over.") to the ironic ("Phil has a pulse on his readership, doesn't he") to the angry ("the journalists' obsession with Clinton's marriage is arguably what brought upon us the Bush disaster, how can you be still so blind, Phil").
But mostly, the reaction is confusion. Writes Phil:
The Clinton marriage is probably less of a negotiation than a long-term range war (not without genuine affection.) But surveying the battlefield, it's clear that Hillary has advanced her public personality position way ahead of his.
That just does not make any sense. Phil confuses the private and the public (again), and tries to infer from the public success of either Clinton signs of private tension and competition at home. To be blunt, if that's how Phil views marriage, that's a sign of some very insecure man who cannot share in the success of his partner. Phil's own marriages have already ended in failure like three times, gee, we wonder why...
If Bronstein was just any blogger, I doubt anyone would care. But this guy used to edit the Chronicle. This guy, who has a pathological emotional attachment to the Clinton, edited the coverage of the newspaper. I find it fascinating that someone with such stale wisdom and who can't write a lick, would rise to this position. I don't find it surprising that he was at the helm when the Chron missed the digital revolution, though: it's 2009 and he's still looking backward towards the Clinton years. If someone would miss the boat, that would be him.
