As a matter of fact, I must have because I didn’t see it. But that’s my point....I’m not arguing about the source...just pointing out, from a researcher’s perspective, that so long as the information checks out to be factual, the subject of whomever is the source, matters not.
That is how Howard Zinn writes and wrote ‘A People’s History of the United States’, he didn’t just make everything up, he mostly just cherry picked what he wanted to include, didn’t include what would have hurt his preconceived view and he saw everything through his own biased conclusion that he wanted to reach.
When a source is as bad as The Nation, it is useless. I used to try and wring some value out of The Nation as you are now, and I finally gave up on being able to find any usefulness with the “oldest weekly magazine in the United States and the farthest Left of all popular American magazines”.