Pat Bagley, on an extremely troubling phenomenon in the closing hours of the primary process.
I had already looked at this piece as a possibility here because, unlike a number of related cartoons, it doesn't assume a lot of facts not in evidence, the chief one being whether there really is a significant "Bernie Bros" phenomenon.
It's obvious that, in any campaign -- and certainly one that has aroused the passion that the Sanders (or Obama or Nader or Perot or Wallace) campaign has -- there will be True Believers who, first of all, will refuse to vote for anyone else in the general election and, to perhaps a lesser degree, will be extremely intemperate in their support.
You'd have to be astonishingly naive not to expect some of that, but the question is, how much is a predictable amount? Are the True Believers anything anyone should fret over?
It doesn't take a lot of people to create a hostile on-line climate, whether it's the hateful, misogynistic attacks on women in superhero cartooning circles, or the unquestioned attacks by Social Justice Warriors on men who take a comfortable posture on subway seats.
In both cases, there's something of a fad involved, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are socially disruptive "Bernie Bros" who, similarly, are happy to ride what they see as a phenomenon they want to be part of.
But I would be stunned to find out that anyone was paying people to post attacks on "manspreading" or to post vicious responses to Hillary supporters.
In the first case, I would still be stunned.
In the second, I am a bit stunned to learn that, while there's no proof that "Bernie Bros" themselves are paid trolls, there is, in fact, a pro-Clinton PAC that is openly paying people to attack Sanders supporters judged to have gone over the line.
The question being, are they like the volunteer firefighters who occasionally get nabbed for setting fires so they can be heroes and put them out?
A press release from "Correct the Record" about its subdivision, "Barrier Breakers," speaks of investing $1 million in countering anti-Hillary postings on social media, saying "The task force currently combats online political harassment, having already addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter."
Here's this week's "On The Media," with a 10-minute discussion of "Correct the Record" starting at the 20:00 mark. I strongly recommend it.
As said, I have no idea if this group put any effort into either creating or publicizing the (alleged) "Bernie Bros" phenomenon, though it has been linked to earlier anti-Sanders attacks and somewhat more traditional opposition research activities.
But once you admit that you're paying trolls, the question of which trolls you are paying becomes almost as important as the overall dishonesty itself.
Particularly when the group is headed by David Brock, who admitted to masterminding the sliming of Anita Hill in 1991.
However, he regretted his actions, the article explains: "Later, when Mr. Brock was working on a biography of Hillary Clinton, he had a change of heart about the attacks on the Clintons and has since defended them."
Doesn't mean I won't vote against Trump, mind you.
One Clarence Thomas is enough, thanks.
Still, if you lie down with the dogs, you will surely get up with the fleas.
Another left-handed compliment
Why stop by picking out Bagley's good cartoon to discuss a distressing phenomenon? Here's one of Anne Telnaes's sketches from the White House Concubines Dinner this weekend.
Not only is her work compellingly fun, but she takes an appropriately cynical view of the Beltway phenomenon, and one can only wish the President weren't the only one who had just experienced his last WHCD.
Having already referred to the event as a "bloated festival of self-satisfied, Potomac-fevered navel gazers," I guess I should be a little grateful that I'm not seeing as much delighted coverage this year as I have in the past.
And yet it goes on, and if it hasn't overwhelmed my own social media feeds, it certainly got plenty of mainstream coverage, to the extent I can't find the one piece I read, in which some movie star explained that the line between news and entertainment has pretty much faded anyway, so why not enjoy it?
And, while newspapers are firing their reporters, I would invite you to scroll down to yesterday's comments about dinner theater, because the hopeful drama majors who hobbled their way through dismal productions of "I Do, I Do" while awaiting a call from Hollywood disappeared shortly thereafter, abandoning drama in favor of broadcast journalism majors, the results of which you can see at 6 and 11, 5 and 10 Central and Mountain Time.
But the dinner is over now, so the Beltway journalists can put away their party clothes and go back to explaining how the Sanders and Trump campaigns are evidence that Beltway politicians have lost touch with the American people.
David Brooks addressed the media's -- and his own -- role in this, and the perhaps predictable response from the Cool Kids Table was that nobody likes him anyway.
Certainly, nobody who attended the WHCD or wishes they had been invited wants to hear "We are the people I once warned us about," when it is less than celebratory in tone.