Good Saturday and weekend to you Widdershins!
Yes, sadly once again we are going to have to go to our crazy places. Did we really think we would not have to go here again? Just yesterday, Trump suggested that Hillary’s security detail should be disarmed. (Hint, you go first Donald) Then he finally admitted that yes, Barack Obama was “born in the U.S.A.”, but said Clinton stated the birther thing first. Oy vey ist mir!! And to add further to the comic, but sad and pathetic birther speech in DC, (which turned out to be more of an advert for his hotel) the backdrop falls apart after he speaks.
And no, you cannot make this stuff up.
Today we need more than a palate cleanser, we need a big ole honkin’ tongue scraper and plenty of eye bleach. So once again we are going to look at and listen to some crazy songs. They can be songs about being crazy, being crazy in love, being crazy however. A quick use of the googling machine yielded three separate websites with lists of crazy songs so they’re out there folks. I will list a number of them and let’s see what you all can come up with.
(2) Napoleon XIV ~ They’re coming to take me away
(3) Fine Young Cannibals ~ She Drives Me Crazy
(4) Patsy Cline ~ Crazy
(5) Anthrax ~ Mad House
(6) Dave Matthews Band ~ Crush
While this is football Saturday for me I’ll be around between quarters, at halftime and between games. Have fun!
Please forgive me for slapping you across the computer screen with that title without first offering a courteous good morning. So, good morning Widdershins and a happy Friday to you.
For quite some time there has been a cavalier attitude in the media of, “The press is treating Hillary differently.” Such an acknowledgement is followed by examples of their sins, a limp mea culpa, a yawn, and the enduring repartee first learned in the schoolyard of, “Yeah, so what?”
That bothered me something fierce since just calling it out again and again does nothing to get to the “why” of it. To write these mea culpa articles saying that Hillary’s relationship with the media is irretrievably broken is to stand by and watch the offensive behavior, yawn, and in essence say, “Yeah, that’s bad.”
It’s not like this treatment started with this campaign. It has been going on since the 1970s. Here’s one of the very first interviews Hillary ever granted.
She was a month into her spell as first lady of Arkansas and was being interviewed on local television.
“You don’t really fit the image we have created for the governor’s wife in Arkansas,” says her inquisitor, a man with a brutal hair parting and disconcerting tie.
“You’re not a native. You’ve been educated in liberal eastern universities. You’re less than 40. You don’t have any children. You don’t use your husband’s name. You practice law. Does it concern you that maybe other people feel that you don’t fit the image that we’ve created for the governor’s wife in Arkansas?”
Hillary answered, “I think that each person should be assessed and judged on that person’s own merits. I’m not 40 but that hopefully will be cured by age, eventually I will be,” she quipped.
Just because this behavior has been going on for nearly 40 years doesn’t answer the “why” either. If anything the behavior has gotten worse. Just look at these two charts cataloging campaign coverage:
There are two possible explanations for the bias against Hillary Clinton in the media. The first is that the media is punishing her for the scandals that occurred during her husband’s presidency, but the most likely explanations are related to gender bias. Individuals who hold executive positions in media companies are overwhelmingly white and male.
These are not the only theories being advanced. There is the theory based in basic jealousy that goes something like this, “The Clintons have had their turn, now it’s someone else’s turn,” — another ethical tenet right out of the elementary schoolyard.
Here are three more theories, one picking up on the sexism:
Sexism is one: Clinton is still struggling to fight the perception that she is not “presidential,” or that she lacks charisma, something that is rooted in the many ways in which being a female candidate makes her, for some people, uncomfortable and confusing to deal with.
Donald Trump’s personality is another: With a rival who is so flippant and resistant to any accountability, Clinton remains as the only candidate who can legitimately interact with the press. The media is increasingly numb to Trump’s outrageous, incendiary, and dangerous statements, due to the frequency and regularity with which he recites them.
But there may be another reason Clinton is held to a higher standard: the press essentially thinks she will win. Therefore, they pay more attention to her and take her more seriously than they do Trump.
These last two are quite entertaining. Trump gets a pass because he’s crazy and Hillary gets lambasted sixteen ways from Sunday because she is sane; therefore, she’s going to win so she should be happy with the maltreatment.
I’ve read other reasons, like the fact that $120 million has been spent investigating her so the American public is entitled to know every last detail of her life. There’s the “what do you expect” theory that so many investigations have left too many threads upon which to pull so you naturally get possible corruption stories. Then there’s the “they can’t be innocent” theory since the Clintons have been in politics for forty years.
Let’s not forget the ever popular conservative dogma that Hillary is being held accountable for Bill’s sexual transgressions, i.e. blame the wife for the husband’s philandering. If that were the case, Mrs. Roger Ailes would never be seen outside a confessional.
There are more theories, there are even rules about the brutal differences in covering Hillary, but nothing I have read encapsulates the theories better than a study conducted by Harvard investigating the stereotypical-based social costs that women face as political candidates. These are the most relevant findings:
- When participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (i.e., being more assertive, stronger, and tougher) and greater competence, while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking female politicians.
- When participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.
- When female politicians were described as power-seeking, participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them.
- Participant gender had no impact on any of the study outcomes – that is, women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions to power-seeking female politicians.
These last two findings are “slap your mama” eye-popping and jaw-dropping. Women seeking office are seen with moral outrage, feelings of contempt, anger, and disgust. The last finding is Madeline Albright saying, “There is a special place in hell for women who do not help each other.” Women are just as likely as men to have negative reactions to female politicians. Someone please read this to Mrs. Greenspan, Susan Sarandon, and Cruella van den Huevel.
Let that sink in for a moment. No matter whether the reporter is a man or woman, Hillary is behind the 8-ball, at least at some level, before she utters the first word or advances the first policy.
So on top of the garden variety sexism, Hillary is seen as contemptibly disgusting by virtue of merely being a female politician. Doesn’t matter if she is married to Bill or Homer Simpson. Doesn’t matter if she is a Democrat, Republican, or Druid. Doesn’t matter if she is running against a trained gibbon or a less trained Trumpanzee. It is all the same because she is a woman.
Why? The vilifying vagina is not treated the same as the palliative penis or so says this Harvard study. This election is our chance to start changing that tired, sorry rule.
What’s on your mind today?
Where to start? How about cold-cocking a rambunctious 69-year-old oxygen-dependent woman who dared not genuflect at a Donnie Deplorable donnybrook? Or how about starting World War III by blowing Iranian boats out of the water if they make ugly gestures offending the tender sensibilities of our sailors? What about discussing the clamorous Yam going on Russian T.V. and declaring his enduring homoerotic fascination with Vladie Dearest?
Or we could just dwell on Hillary’s pneumonia.
Then there is the all important transparency. Transparency is last week’s “optics” that was the prior week’s “lack of access”. Luckily all three collided last Sunday in the iPhone clip that has been played and replayed as if it were the Zapruder film showing the infamous second stumble into the campaign van. Of course it doesn’t stop there since the dark cauldron of internet rumors knows no end.
We could spend our time exploring just how deplorable the marauding hordes of angry Trump phobia-phobic phobes are, but we started that discussion back in May. That’s when we discovered Trumpkins consider “white discrimination” to be as large a problem as discrimination against minorities. We could talk about the Alt-Right not considering themselves racist, since they just hate Jews, but that is merely the beginning when talking about the parade of deplorables.
Nearly half of Trump’s supporters described African-Americans as more ‘violent’ than whites. The same proportion described African-Americans as more ‘criminal’ than whites, while 40 percent described them as more ‘lazy’ than whites.”
A Pew poll released in February found that 65 percent of Republicans believe the next president should “speak bluntly even if critical of Islam as a whole” when talking about Islamic extremists.
Another Reuters/Ipsos online poll in July found that 58 percent of Trump supporters have a “somewhat unfavorable” view of Islam and 78 percent believe Islam was more likely to encourage acts of terrorism.
The deplorable remark brought with it the Right’s professional victimization. The victimhood kicked-in with all its righteous fury and so did the Right’s selective amnesia. It seems they conveniently forgot that Deplorable Donnie called half the country losers.
Just last night former Secretary of State Colin Powell reluctantly joined the fray by way of purloined emails. Secretary Powell has little good to say about the Yam, his orange-tinted acolytes, or their racist ways. The Powell emails have lovely pet names to describe the Yam like “national disgrace,” “international pariah,” and “racist”.
In keeping with what is the equivalent of muscle memory, our attention could just return to Hillary’s email which is the trusty stand-in for every false equivalency story for the past two years. The Washington Post summed it up quite nicely by pointing out how good news about Hillary’s email doesn’t seem to find its way to the front page or into Matt Lauer’s “Moderating for Dummies” textbook.
First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.
Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.
Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.
Since it is pretty much accepted fact that there is a double standard in the coverage of the two candidates, there are now compilations of questions the media has refused to ask the whirling Cheeto. There is even convoluted excuses for engaging in false equivalencies.
For a moment and contrary to the ephemeral nature of optics, let’s talk facts – as boring as that might be. When it comes to policy, the Mango Meerkat has cobbled together 9,000 words on his website while Hillary weighs in at around 113,000. The Orangealope has a grand total of seven, that’s seven whole policies, while Hillary has thirty-three.
In addition, national unemployment is down to around full-employment numbers. Inflation is non-existent. Gas is $2.00 a gallon. And only announced yesterday, the median income for U.S. households jumped 5.2% from 2014 to 2015. That represents the biggest one-year increase since the Census Bureau started tracking this data in 1968. As a result, over 3 million Americans rose out of poverty in 2015. It’s hard to overstate just how big a deal this is.
Remember the last time this happened? A Clinton was in the White House who likewise had spent seven years cleaning up the mess of prior Republican administrations. History might not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. So yes, please, another term of this would be nice.
What’s on your mind today?
Good evening Widdershins!
As I mentioned on the previous post, Hillary was at the 9/11 ceremonies in NYC and then had to leave. Her spokesperson said she was “overcome” with the heat and dehydrated. She was taken to Chelsea’s apartment, rested and was rehydrated. As she was leaving the apartment Hillary looked fine.
The BBC had this to say about the situation:
Dr Lisa Bardack said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday and given antibiotics, but had become dehydrated at the New York event.
The doctor’s statement said she was now re-hydrated and “recovering nicely”.
“Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies. On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia,” Dr Bardack’s statement said.
“She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule,” it went on.
There are so many things to say here about the “health brouhaha” going on.
First, she’s traveling/flying all over the country right now. It has mostly been in smaller, corporate type aircraft but she’s now added the B 737-800. Still, she is constantly airborne and dealing with pressurized cabins which can definitely affect your respiratory tract, sinuses and the like. Ask anyone who had done a great deal of flying in their careers. Prlolix, mb, would y’all agree?
Second, okay she was diagnosed with pneumonia. As GAgal and I commented we’ve either had pneumonia or known someone who had it and they were given a script for antibiotics and went on their merry way.
Third, what kind of antibiotic was she given? If it was a Zpack or other mycin drug, many times there are warnings on those to avoid a lot of direct sunlight. So let’s say she was given azithromycin. She probably started it Friday and then Sunday, there she is out in the heat and sunlight. Shame Hillary! I tend to believe she was given a mycin drug of some type because another side effect is photosensitivity and there she was with those big ole sunglasses on.
Fourth, should we be worried? Not really. She is constantly on the road campaigning and while she may not be sleeping at the local Motel 6 she’s also not flying home each night to sleep in her own bed at, say, Trump Tower, as the yam does.
As Politico said, this may affect her planned trip to California, but ya know, Cali will still be there.
As the BBC piece said:
George HW Bush once vomited on a Japanese prime minister. His son fainted in the White House after choking on a pretzel. Franklin Roosevelt hid his serious health conditions, and John F Kennedy never spoke of his debilitating back condition.
The BBC piece also goes on with a “yes, but” thing
The difference between these men and Hillary Clinton, however, is that her “overheating” episode – the apparent result of a case of pneumonia – comes in the home stretch of a presidential campaign where she seeks to tie Ronald Reagan as the oldest person ever elected to a first term as president.
Fair enough but once she’s in the White House she won’t be constantly flying around the country. When she does travel as President she’ll have a bed on the 747 where she can rest, and sleep if she wishes to. And she won’t be doing that each and every day.
I’m not sure exactly how much information we as the electorate are actually entitled to know about our candidates. Clinton has released a statement from her internist that provided her overall health status in 2015. Her vitals and lab results were excellent. Are we entitled to ask for any more? And if we are, then both candidates should be held to the same standards.
As usual, this is an open thread to take wherever you wish.
Good Saturday and weekend!
We have arrived at the weekend and this week we definitely need a break from the weird week of politics; a palate cleanser as Chat would say. We watched a “forum” that, while the idea was good, the implementation was just awful and provided us with at least one new hashtag, “#Laueringthebar”. We saw the talking yam continue to lie and not be held accountable for it. We saw the moderator of said forum waste precious time (she had thirty minutes) on questions about emails with Hillary Clinton and then demand brevity when asking her “longform” questions about ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, telling her to speed it up. Clinton was, and has been treated differently, and finally, people have noticed; here and here.
So to put this week behind us and for a change of pace let’s look at some movies, and specifically comedies. Comedy has been a staple in movies since their inception so there are tons of them out there. I’ll put up a few of mine and please share some of your favorites in the comments.
(1) Meet the Parents ~ Circle of Trust
(2) There’s Something About Mary ~ Dog Fight
(3) Planes, Trains and Automobiles ~ Wrong way on the highway
(4) The Marx Brothers ~ Duck Soup
(5) Woody Allen ~ Love and Death ~ Wheat
(6) Animal House ~ Double Secret Probation
(7) From the title of the post ~ Scenes from It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world ~Jonathan Winters
Okay! That’s a few of my favorites and I’ve barely scratched the surface. I want to leave room for your contributions and not have the page take forever to load. So please share some of your favorites below.
We’ve heard soooo much about Hillary’s voice over the years. The pitch, the tone, the volume. Throughout the election we’ve watched the pundits spend more time discussing the characteristics of her voice than the words she actually said. I can’t think of any other woman, whether politician or someone in power, who has had their voice analyzed this way. Even with all the criticism of her as the First Lady, I don’t remember anyone suggesting she should modulate her voice. It seems to me, this scheme started in 2008.
So, it’s nice to run across a humorous piece that talks about Hillary’s voice from another angle. It must be true because the media says so. “Hillary Clinton Has Been Finding Her Voice Since 1993”
It was January 16, 1993, and the Associated Press was ruminating on the supposedly contradictory nature of the woman who would become, in four days, the First Lady of the United States.
They quoted her mentor Marian Wright Edelman as saying, “We are complicated people… I’m sure she will find her voice. She’ll do it in her own way.
What Edelman may not have anticipated is that Hillary would find her voice and lose it and find it again over and over and over for 23 years.
And so began Hillary’s glorious adventure looking for her voice like Dora the Explorer searching for the map. She found it in Beijing in 1996, but must have lost it because everyone was looking for it again when she ran for U.S. Senate in 1999. Apparently, she didn’t need her voice while she was a Senator because in 2008, the search was on again. She must not have needed it as Secretary of State either because Bloomberg said so.
And then her voice was gone, because in August of 2015, Bloomberg broke the news that she had found it.
“Hillary Clinton Finds Her Voice Making Gun Violence Plea Following Roanoke Murders,” Bloomberg reported. “It really wasn’t what she said, but how she said it, with what came across as honest heartbreak.”
2016 turned out to be a bonanza year. She found her voice several months in a row. The last, snarky line: (spoiler alert)
Asked if she would be willing to submit for an interview on this subject, the Clinton campaign didn’t respond. Perhaps she couldn’t find her voice.
What about Hillary’s voice in the 23 years prior to 1993? The one where she gave the first student commencement speech at Wellesley, at the age of 21 years, that earned a prominent write-up in LIFE magazine’s ‘Class of ’69’? The voice she used to graduate Yale Law School, the one she used when she was staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund, when she was first female chair for Legal Services Corporation, first female partner at the Rose Law Firm, asked to sit on the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate scandal? (Now THAT’S a real scandal)
If I started listed everything else she and her voice accomplished, including when she was the First Lady of Arkansas, we’d be here all day. My question is – how did she manage to do it all if she had yet to find her voice? Hypnosis?
Another thing that always seems to be missing. Just think of all the things Hillary has not only given her voice to, but how many have been given their own voice because of hers. Women and causes all over the world who were not being heard…
In 1997, Hillary and former SOS Madeline Albright started the nonprofit Vital Voice Democracy Initiative to give voice to women and put them in leadership positions. The positive response led to the Vital Voices Global Partnership, which advances women’s economic, political and social status around the world. And that is just one initiative. Hillary speaks for so many and gives many more their own voices. The positive effects of Hillary’s voice are so numerous, they are incalculable.
You never know who will be next. This is a young woman named Ella Dawson who has a STD (STI). Rather than hide in shame, she decided to become an activist to raise awareness. She was promptly and viciously attacked by – you guessed it – the “alt-right”. She tells of some of her experience here and her feelings about Hillary’s Reno speech.
I’ve been a Hillary Clinton supporter for years now, but the importance of her campaign for President didn’t hit home with me until I watched her speech last week in Reno. I know so many writers who are terrified to even mention Breitbart by name online because we so often pay for it. There Hillary was, literally reading Breitbart headlines from the podium as the audience gasped. She was unafraid of the Alt-Right’s vulgar, distorted conspiracy theories, their character assassinations, their sexist photoshopped memes. And despite her fearlessness, she was able to recognize their danger without validating their ideology.
I have never seen a politician understand the danger of the Alt-Right. It made me sad that a fringe hate community has become so central to American politics that a presidential candidate has to make a speech about them. But it also filled me with genuine, raw hope for the first time since I became an activist. Finally, someone took the threat of the Alt-Right seriously. And it could only be Hillary, who has experienced their loathing for decades, long before Twitter even existed. She reminds me of myself, or of the woman I hope to become: resilient in the face of opposition, unbroken by decades of sexist attacks and restrictive stereotypes. Her candidacy is proof that the Alt-Right will ultimately fail. There is no amount of screaming and threatening that can halt progress.
If I could say anything to Hillary Clinton, it would be thank you. Thank you for making me feel less alone in this daily battle against hatred online. Thank you for never wavering in your pursuit of the full equality of women. Thank you for speaking, no matter how much talking heads criticize your tone of voice. Thank you for pushing this country forward, and thank you for taking us with you. I’m with you.
When I watched Hillary’s Reno speech I was a little surprised and more than a little afraid for her when she started, not just taking names, but naming names and kicking ass. Not just Trump, but Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Breitbart… She even called out some guy on Twitter “white-genocide-TM ” and said – flat out – he’s a bigot. She called out the “nationalism” of Nigel Farage and Putin. I thought at the time how brave she was.
But, somewhere in my foggy brain, I knew I was missing something. I watched the media and knew they were missing something. Finally, I got it. It wasn’t what she did, it was why she did. She went where others fear to tread. She gave the media time to dig into the dungeons of the “alt-right” and inform the general public. That didn’t happen because they are afraid of them. Yeah, I said it. The media are scared of them. Why wouldn’t they be? They know what these people are capable of including threats to their kids and family.
While we were watching the media’s non-reaction to their own announcement that the head of Breitbart was Trump’s new CEO (say what?), Hillary and folks decided they would have to take it into their own hands. While the media was wasting time questioning Hill’s surrogates about the Foundation and emails, her team was gearing up for this speech.
So, here’s the why. Hillary didn’t want her surrogates and supporters to bare the brunt of bringing these rock-dwellers into daylight. So, she did what needed to be done. Herself. She’s not about to let these white supremacist, racist, misogynistic, bigots hide behind some benign “alt-right” label. She used those very words. She took that pressure, that burden, off her supporters and onto her own shoulders as she has done many times before. It was like she was waving both arms in the air and yelling “Hey Haters! I’m over here! Come bully ME!” It was the most courageous thing I’ve seen in a long time.
I wish I could be that fearless. I am not. But, I think I’ll leave a few Post-It notes around the house with the last words of Hillary’s commencement speech.
Fear is always with us, but we just don’t have time for it. Not now.
Especially, not now.
Open thread everyone.
It’s after Labor Day and the media is almost giddy with the election vapors. Try as they might, the invention of this election horse race meme is about as legitimate as the Yam’s skin tone occurring in nature.
Before we begin the deconstruction, let’s engage in a little narrative psychodrama therapy. Imagine your worst boyfriend or girlfriend ever. I mean your absolute worst.
Let’s say that worst boyfriend or girlfriend decided to become a race car driver. Wouldn’t you watch them on teevee? Not necessarily wishing them ill will, but not exactly wishing them a milk bath at the checkered flag either.
That little psychodrama is the clamoring Yam’s candidacy. We know he has no redeeming qualities, but his every breath just brings him closer to the next car wreck in which he will undoubtedly be involved. The only question is: Will he walk away this time?
Our good sense was assaulted yesterday morning when we awoke and heard the ballyhoo from CNN about the Yam taking the lead in their latest poll. How could the orange Orangutan have taken the lead?
Two words: He hasn’t.
First, a word about polling – a poll only counts those who are being counted. To explain, if you took a poll of herpetologists asking them to rate snakes as pets, you would have a much different result than if you asked the entire country. Your herpetology poll would not be wrong since the universe of measurement were reptile lovers.
That’s the story behind the CNN/ORC poll. You won’t hear that explanation as Wolf Blitzer breathlessly drools into his beard. In fact, you wouldn’t know that unless you go to page 21 of the innards of the poll and find this paragraph under Methodology:
A total of 1,001 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 28% described themselves as Democrats, 32% described themselves as Republicans, and 40% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
In polling that is known as a +4 Republican sample. No big deal unless you also know these things:
- 42% of Americans identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans
- Democrats maintain edge over GOP in party identification and leaning
It also helps to know that the 26% identifying as Republicans is just one-percent above the record low of 25%. Further, it helps to know the CNN/ORC poll was in the field September 1 through the 4th.
Few pollsters will put a poll in the field over a long holiday weekend because it skews the finishing sample. What does that mean?
It means people with the wherewithal to be at the beach or in the mountains over a long weekend will not be answering a survey. That fact alone skews this poll toward the Yam’s primary demographic – blue collar males.
Your first question is this: Why didn’t CNN know this? The answer is: They did and it didn’t stop them. They can say their poll is accurate because just like the herpetology poll, it is measuring those that were to be measured. It holds no downside for them. Two months out from the election, it is a horse race question with no consequences other than being sexy click bait for the Fox demographic CNN and MSNBC so desperately covet.
This poll also benefits from the media’s double standard in reporting this campaign. Just like a former bad paramour, the expectations for Trump are so low that his continued forbearance from peeling bananas with his feet makes him presidential. Hillary on the other hand is held to some superhuman Athena-like standard never before attained by a mere mortal.
This double standard is being noticed. Thoughtful observers are catching on and speaking up. Professor Krugman talks about the “Goring of Hillary” in the vein of what happened to Al Gore.
Paul Waldman talks about the double standard by saying:
The big difference is that there are an enormous number of reporters who get assigned to write stories about those issues regarding Clinton… always with the insistence that questions are being raised and the implication that shady things are going on, even if there isn’t any evidence at a particular moment to support that idea.
When it comes to Trump, [h]ere’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.
The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core. It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.
And Jonathan Allen has updated his five media rules for covering Hillary. Read them all, but the second is illustrative of what Hillary has faced for 25 years and continues to face today:
Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
Even with all the “Contrived News Now” hoopla, it is undeniable that Hillary is in the driver’s seat in this election. Even if our worst orange-tinted nightmare continues to careen around the campaign trail, Hillary’s got this. We have known around these parts for the better part of eight years it wouldn’t be easy – we just have to believe in her since we are “Stronger Together”!
What’s on your mind?