The front page of today's New York ​Times.
​

The sub-headline is difficult to read here.  It says -- “They were not simply names on a list. They were us.”

Within the paper, the Times wrote --

“Numbers alone cannot possibly measure the impact of the coronavirus on America, whether it is the number of patients treated, jobs interrupted or lives cut short. As the country nears a grim milestone of 100,000 deaths attributed to the virus, The New York Times scoured obituaries and death notices of the victims. The 1,000 people here reflect just 1 percent of the toll. None were mere numbers.”

This is from Mike Luckovich.  He's the op-ed cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and has received two Pulitzer Prizes and won cartoonist of the year in 2005.  I suspect that when he thought of his, he slapped his head, thought "Oh, my God, I have to get this out by tomorrow before anyone else comes up with it," and immediately began drawing.

It's also a perfect response to almost any Trump tweet.

Just to fill in the gaps and put the proper perspective here, Jurgen Klopp is the manager of the Liverpool English football team that plays in the Premier League.

Over the years, I've written my share of articles criticizing Tucker Carlson, who I find the most white supremacist on "Fox News," even more so than Sean Hannity which is a high standard to top, though in fairness I consider Hannity racist and anti-Semitic more than "pure white supremacist."  It's a distinction with a difference. One hates minorities, the other wants them out of His Country.

I've written here about seeing a liberal guest on Carlson's show during the 2016 presidential election, and he (I wish I could recall who it was because he was so richly prescient) called Trump a fascist -- and Tucker Carlson turned apoplectic, it was like his head was about to explode.  He started fuming and spouting and fulminating and wouldn't let the guest explain why he felt it was an accurate description of Trump -- despite Carlson snapping, "Why would you say that???!!!" and adding how unfair it was.  All I could think was that the guest clearly hit a raw nerve with Carlson and that  in the midst of all his ranting meltdown, if anyone wanted a visual aid for explaining the Shakespearean admonition, "Methinks he doth protest too much," that video should be put in the Time Capsule vault.

But for all the things I've written about Tucker Carlson, none of it comes close to a virtuoso column on Wednesday in the Washington Post by Margaret Sullivan.  In fact, if you only read the title, you could stop there, and it would be the best -- "Tucker Carlson's claim that white supremacy is a hoax is easy to prove wrong.  Just watch his show."

You can't get much better than that.  

And the thing is, even with a title like that to live up to, Ms. Sullivan is able to ratchet it up with the very first sentence.  The article begins -- 

"In his ongoing and remarkably successful quest to be the worst of the Fox News nighttime hosts, Tucker Carlson hit a new low on his Tuesday show."

-- and then she goes off from there.  When quoting Carlson in full denial, "I’ve never met anybody, not one person who ascribes to white supremacy.  I don’t know a single person who thinks that’s a good idea” -- she follows that with a pithy, "Hmm.  Maybe his sample size is a bit flawed."

The article masterfully takes Carlson apart by quoting him, repeatedly.  And she doesn't limit her focus to him alone, but quotes others at "Fox News" showing how it's all of a part of "racist propaganda" and what the result of it is, though always returning the attention on Carlson as the worst of the worst.  It builds, is damning and is eloquent -- even bending over backwards to be fair to Carlson by saying that she doesn't know what drives his white supremacist diatribes, and for all she knows he's a lovely fellow, and she doesn't know how much he believes of the hate-filled and divisive things he says, or if it's just to drive ratings by pandering to a racist, raging audience.  But she adds that it doesn't make a difference, since the results of his "damaging rhetoric" matter because they have the same impact.

But as good as the whole article is, she tops it with her last line which sums up her thesis in 22 words.  You can read it all here.

UPDATE: Since Carlson's broadcast on Monday when he claimed that white supremacy was not a problem in the United States and is a "hoax," his show has lost three major sponsors -- Long John Silver’s, Nestlé and HelloFresh.  The program previously lost several sponsors in March after recordings surfaced of him make white supremacist statements on a radio show over the course of several years.

What has perhaps gotten the most headlines for this story is the "red flag" for former Nebraska Secretary of State Kris Kobach who was being vetted as the possible head of the Department of Homeland Security.  The concern here was that Mr. Kobach might have a "political vulnerability" of -- white supremacist.  To be clear, the Trump administration thought that white supremacy was a "political vulnerability"...not a human decency vulnerability.

The good news is that Kris Kobach was not named Secretary of DHS.  Left of of the article was the bad news -- the Trump administration did hire Kobach.  They made him vice-chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  He served under Vice President Pence who was chairman, but is practice was the committee's "operational leader."

So, that means a man the Trump administration believed had a political vulnerability with white supremacy ran the presidential committee of election integrity.  Given the Mueller Report finding of multiple instances of Trump team contacts with Russia, turning a blind eye to Russian actions and happily accepting the efforts of Russia to cyberattack the U.S. on behalf of Trump (also known as...say it all together -- "collusion"), the bitter irony of this is not lost on sentient human beings.

If you're like to read Axios's own article on the story, including the posting of numerous of the document, you can read it here 

And this is a three-minute segment of the broadcast where they show a blunt Chris Christie the vetting material on himself before he was fired.
​

This editorial caught my eye yesterday.  It's a blunt takedown of the Republican Party, noting that "Republicans in Congress surrender their duty, their power and their part in defending American democracy."  And they single out Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).  Why this stands out is because the paper is Salt Lake Triibune, from the very Red state of Utah.

The editorial isn't very long, but it's pointed and angry.  You can read the whole thing here.

After last year's event, the  White House Correspondents organization kowtowed to Trump and decided not to get a comedian this year because, well, gee, comedians are so mean and it’s so divisive.
 
Meanwhile, Trump still didn’t show up and ordered those on his administration staff not to show up.
 
Instead they got historian Ron Chernow.
 
And Chernow was…masterful.  Often as funny as a comedian.  Often as scathing.  And overloaded with rich substance based on historical reality.

What was interesting was reading comments about his speech on YouTube from people marveling at this guy they didn’t know – unaware that he was the person wrote the Alexander Hamilton biography that Lin-Manuel Miranda based his musical on.  I haven't read that, but did read his biography of George Washington which was wonderful.

If you didn't see Chernow's speech, here it is.  It's about 25 minutes and eminently watchable.  Often very funny, as I said, and even self-effacing, but mostly about the historic relationship between the press and President, filled with fun and fascinating stories to support his points.  He's blunt and charming, and what's interesting, as well, is seeing the people there who clearly do not like his bluntness.  But he speaks with a gravitas that gives it all so much more more support.

Often Rachel Maddow has thoughtful, insightful interview that go deep into substance, among the most thoughtful and in-depth on TV, although occasionally they're cheery puffery. I found her conversation last night with Pete Buttigieg to be personable but empty, bordering on just giddy generality, coming close to cheerleading. And perhaps most surprising is that it took over most of the show when there was not only actual news, but news that was serious and important.

Someone wrote me on social media that they found it engaging and thought the personal connection between the two was palpable. He say "there will be time for policy chats in future discussions. For now I am glad they met and let us share the experience of that first meeting."

It was very engaging.  And absolutely charming.  No question.  It was also (to me) empty generalities and took up almost the whole show. Personally, I don't care one whit when journalists meet subjects for the first time (something Ms. Maddow made a Big Deal about). And I do care to hear specifics not just the first time, but every time, most particularly when they're running for President of the United States.  It was a very charming interview -- but Trump won by charming his base.  Speaking just personally, I want details. We could have had a couple minutes of charm and the rest finding out about why Pete Buttigieg thinks he should be president.  I am absolutely fine with people enjoying the interview -- it was very pleasant.  My quibble is that Ms. Maddow is a better interviewer than that.