When they used to give me personality tests for sales jobs, one of the weird things I learned is that I have really high sales resistance. This is odd, because sales people in general are the most susceptible to a sales pitch, and some employers expressed concern that I was lacking this trait. But they hired me anyway, and it all worked out.
Maybe it’s the ADD. Maybe I’m not really paying attention, or maybe I just have a more accurate bullshit detector. (Except with men, but that’s another story.) I’m not a joiner, and I’m not much of a true believer. A mutant, I guess. What I do hate, however, is bullshit. One of my friends said to me, “You’re such a Hillary fan, you’re always defending her!” and I got really mad. “No, I’m defending the fucking truth,” I said. “If you want to go after her on policy, fine. But not this media-driven personality bullshit, or these fake scandals.”
I can’t say it any plainer: The media is our enemy.
I know you think you know all about Hillary Clinton, because the media’s been attacking her for a couple of decades now. (And if Bernie Sanders starts looking like a real threat, just watch what they do to him.) Don’t underestimate the power of all the loaded language the media has been feeding us for so long; it’s subliminal. They’ve convinced us she’s a monster. She’s not.
People tell me, “I don’t have to pay attention to the media to know that Hillary Clinton is (fill in the blank).” But here’s the thing: Where do these ideas come from? Your opinions about her had to come from somewhere, right? Do you actually know Hillary Clinton? (I don’t know her, although I know some people who do.) In America, we think we know the people on our teevee. (I was always fascinated to read interviews with actors who played soap opera villains, because they describe how people come up to them on the street, yelling at them and even hitting them.)
I can’t find the link now, but there was a story a few weeks ago about an expansive Republican program to tear down Clinton on social media (especially Facebook) by feeding an endless stream of negative stories into the newsfeeds. The reason I don’t write about all of this is, there aren’t enough hours in the day! The stories are very cleverly selected, because they’re so nuanced, you’d have to be a political junkie like me to know how misleading they are, or all the background material that rebuts them. And your eyes would glaze over if I tried to explain them, anyway.
And frankly, I’m tired of it. I go onto Facebook for the jokes and kitten pictures, not more work.
I hope I have enough credibility with readers that you understand if there’s a real scandal, I’ll let you know.
TV Hillary is not Real Hillary. The media is not your friend. Pay attention. Build up your sales resistance.
I don’t care who you vote for in the primary. But if Hillary Clinton ends up as the candidate, it would be really helpful if you didn’t pass along Republican smears.
Her campaign funding (and I don’t mean the Foundation) is predictive and scandalous. It is also so much the norm that no one will even report on it. Barack got away with the same thing; reporting on small donations while lardering up with Wall Street and corporate contributions.
The SEC said a few weeks ago they didn’t have the capacity to keep up with it, and weren’t really going to try.
I read a transcript of her Roosevelt Island speech. There were a lot of vaguely progressive platitudes–the four freedoms etc., but what I think made Bill Clinton’s first and second campaigns notable, was that he made specific policy speeches and advocated for (and explained) particular pieces of legislation. The Roosevelt Island speech seemed more like a Barack Obama speech–sounds good but few specifics. Her equivocating on TPP is also disheartening. She should be leading, staking out a position, not waiting to see how the floor vote shakes out. Maybe she’s caught between he Charybdis and Scylla of O-bot supporters (“traitor!”) versus wealthy donors. Or who knows. I’m sure we’d all like more clarity.
Oh, I don’t think there’s any question that she doesn’t want to pick a fight with Obama over TPP. How’s that going to play out with the African-American voting base if she’s perceived as stabbing him in the back? I think in this case, she went as far as she dared to go.
*Except* Correct me if I’m wrong: The CBC didn’t go along with it either. Could it simply be that the CBC is susceptible to backlash from voters, whereas Obama is simply stooping to conquer presidential library donors? Wouldn’t surprise me if it’s as blood simple as that. If that’s the case Obama is as venial as his predecessor.
The CBC doesn’t win elections. But if black Democratic voters think you’re showing disrespect to Obama, you’re in big trouble.
That’s not universal. There’s a lot of disappointment out there–not only that but voices to articulate it, such as Glen Ford. The crazyeyes drooling zombie O-bots I know are all white, educated, you know the rest; quite a range of ages too, from young to old.
I don’t need the MSM to tell me that Hillary would not have served up even her weak tea on trade policy, inequality, the rapacity of the .01%, and eternal war yesterday without prodding from Liz, Bernie, other progressives, the CBC, unions,etc. Don’t much care about Benghazi, her personal server, Vince Foster, etc. But the foundation and the speaking fees do present the appearance of a class identity with the .01%. If not actual impropriety. Also, the fact that the MSM repeatedly reports that people don’t trust Hillary doesn’t make it false, does it? Polls show that she has a broad problem with trust. Why would that be? Is it solely because the media enjoy hounding her, or because there is a significant gap between her words and her deeds?
Chicken or the egg? The media has been painting the Clintons as dishonest and untrustworthy for so long, how much of it is grounded in reality? All I know is, anytime I’ve been really positive Bill or Hillary Clinton did something really awful, research shows me it’s not as it appears. But average voters don’t do that kind of research. They have feelings, and then search for a narrative that seem to validate their feelings.
I will point out, though, that the same voters who says she’s untrustworthy also tell pollsters they’ll vote for her anyway.
She really is in an awful position on TPP. I’m sure she’s not happy with it — it was her job to sell it when she was in State, and she really looks bad if she attacks Obama once she’s out. Obama doesn’t help matters by making it a line in the sand — she has to get the AA voters to win.