Log in

No account? Create an account

Tue, Mar. 11th, 2008, 05:45 pm
Now is the time when the US media starts to lie

Now is the time in the US primary cycle when the US media starts to lie. It happens every time - just when it's becoming clear who's going to get the nomination, the media completely manufactures the story of a competitive race, because it sells newspapers.

The truth is, it's basically over. The chances of Clinton winning the Democratic nomination have become remote. Now that that's the case, I feel it's time to talk about how completely surreal her campaign has been.

The Clinton campaign rested on three core talking points. First, that she was the inevitable candidate, which now looks so ridiculous as to not be worth debunking (and should have at the beginning, to).

The second talking point was that Clinton has the most experience. This is an example of 'the big lie' - if you make a claim which has no basis in reality whatsoever, it's more likely than a claim which closely resembles reality but is slightly wrong. The Clinton senate biography page doesn't even mention any past history before being in the senate, and as first lady her main real involvement was in the Clinton health care plan, which was a disaster. The way she's run her campaign isn't a so great either. Basically, there's no record of experience, not even a made up one. Specific debunking aside, everybody knows the only reason Hillary has any national presence is because she's married to Bill, and he used to be the president. Any claims to the contrary should rightfully be greeting with raised eyebrows.

Clinton's third talking point was that she was the most 'electable' candidate. While it's true that she's widely liked, she's also widely disliked, with a large section of the population already being familiar with and hating her. She also has a tendency to do flagrant political maneuverings with no apparent awareness that people might see through them. For example, all the candidates agreed to basically cancel the Michigan primaries, including her, and everybody else removed their names from the ballot, except her, and then after the primaries were held she argued the delegates should be reinstated, presumably because she'd given the people the right to vote for her and now that should be respected. She also outright lied about doing 'dangerous' diplomatic work. Add to those and similar incidents questions as to where exactly all the of the Clintons's money has come from since Bill left the white house, and it's very clear that Hillary isn't exactly a compelling candidate. The polls (which, granted, have to be taken with a grain of salt) have backed that up as well - early polls indicated she would win the general election against leading republicans by the most narrow margin of any leading Democratic candidate, and polls now indicate the same thing.

Politics is politics I understand, but for the central themes of a presidential campaign to be claims which are obviously untrue to the general population is just plain bizarre.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 01:46 am (UTC)

Senator Clinton is not my favoured candidate, but in fairness to her I think her claim of experience is not so bogus as you suggest. Yes, she has made some unreasonable and politically maladroit claims about depth of her foreign policy experience, but she wasn't just married to Bill Clinton, she was undeniably a top-ranking Presidential advisor, integral to the administration and deeply engaged in policy and process.

In that respect, no other primary candidate in either party could claim comparable Executive experience. I believe there is unique and significant value in being part of a working White House.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 02:23 am (UTC)

The truth is, it's basically over. The chances of Clinton winning the Democratic nomination have become remote.

The primary/caucus system is obtuse enough that I don't know that this is truly the case, given a 130-ish spread today, and 400-ish to go for Obama. Looking at CNN's delegate tools, most scenarios going forward involve the decision being made by the superdelegates. Do you figure that there will be a moral obligation felt to vote with the popular vote?

I agree that the biggest risk with Clinton is that she is so intensely disliked by Republicans that she would GOTV for them.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 05:02 am (UTC)

From what I've been reading (please correct me if I am wrong), many superdelegates are making promises not to go against the popular vote.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 06:12 am (UTC)

Hated by a lot of Democrats too. Her warmongering, I'm-gonna-show-those-foreigners-who's-boss approach to diplomacy isn't exactly in line with what the core constituency wants.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 07:31 am (UTC)

Yep. This post sums up my feelings much better than I could myself.

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 02:58 am (UTC)

I'm thoroughly annoyed by her at this point and am just ignoring it til the results are on (and I hope you're right that she has only a remote chance).

I predict that the first female president will be a Republican.
(Deleted comment)

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 05:58 am (UTC)

This is when they get into transparent fabrication, as opposed to their usual inept bungling.
(Deleted comment)

Wed, Mar. 12th, 2008 01:36 pm (UTC)

not differing significantly from the mean is sort of the point of a democracy.

Sun, Apr. 27th, 2008 12:36 am (UTC)
curiousharry: Lies

There several categories of lies and misinformation propagated by various groups -- and some of us see right through it. The scary thing is that Hillary knows this but understands we represent perhaps 1/2 of 1% of the voters -- the rest are like sheep -- they either aren't resourceful or intelligent enough to read up on what's going on (did you see Susan Jacoby and Steven Colbert's little gig where we learn 50% of Americans don't even know that Genesis is the first book of the Bible or that they can't find Iraq on a globe where all the countrys' names are clearly labeled or that 50% of Americans did not read a single book last year).

So, you should understand that she doesn't care about these lies being exposed by and to 1/2 of 1% of the public. I think what is more relevant here is how unbright and uneducated the masses are, rather than the lies.

Even the highly educated or very bright person has blind spots whose darkness is directly proportional to the ability of that person to detect lies in areas they are not as knowledgeable in. Overcoming this requires much experience and being very well learned. A good example is Reverend Jeremy Wright. While it's true that the "G.D. America" quote was very inappropriate in terms of insulting so many people, and while it is true that much of what he said was done by using sound bites where context of the entire sermon was not provided, the real question noone will ask and J. Wright will not answer until *after* Barack becomes (assuming he does) President is this: *what was he really thinking?*. What was Underground Weatherman William Ayers really thinking in the 1960s and what is he thinking in the last 20 years with his highly criticized social-based education system? It's highly-criticized because it deserves to be as it is a non-establishment way of making change happen -- but at the expense of setting so many people back who can make a difference by becoming educated in the traditional establishment way being able to open their eyes to the much-needed activism such as that needed to reverse the historically unparalleled wealth divide (as measured by the Gini coefficient) in the USA. Why aren't some of us bright enough to understand this very nuanced way of thinking?

More in the future. Another good example is how the media treats Hugo Chavez of Venezuela -- of course, if I were famous and this email were quoted, the first reaction would be that I am a communist or socialist or I am pro-Iran or pro-Fidel-Castro -- all of which couldn't be further from the truth. But I do know that what Chavez is really like and what is *really* going on is too nuanced for even the brightest and Internet-savvy folks out there. I see it all the time by randomly asking people what they think of him and getting the Pat Robertson response that he is a nut-job. Ironically, when I ask them about Pat Robertson, they are not aware how ruthless he is in the financial/globalist world ... just more mind control -- people focus on his rather bizarre statements which is exactly what he wants you to do -- anything to take away the focus of his past and present financial dealings.

See ya!