Which of Chait’s last two articles do you think is worse?
First, we have his hit piece on Bernie Sanders for supporting the Sandinistas in the 1980s. Say what you about Daniel Ortega in 2019, supporting the Sandinistas in the 1980s was a righteous cause as Reagan and cronies used the most hideous methods possible to unsettle them and quite materially contributed to that movement’s undoing in its early days when it could have developed differently than late-life Ortega. I don’t even see how one can write this article and not simply be an apologist for Reagan, but I guess Chait thinks he is that?
Second, there is Chait going all-in to defend Maggie Haberman from the left, angry with her for running a glam shot-laden article on Hope Hicks that posed following the law as an existential question. Instead, according to Chait, Haberman is a hard-hitting journalist and all this criticism shows is that the left and right are the same. Chait also rejects the idea that reporters should hold politicians accountable, although I’m not sure how he squares this with his attacks on Sanders.
Remind me why we are supposed to take this clown seriously?