View Single Post
  #7  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:46 AM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 619
Several elections ago, interviewers went door-to-door with potential voters, asking which candidate they would vote for and why. The Canadians frequently dissed one Prime Ministerial candidate, quoting word for word what the negative advertising said... while insisting they were not being influenced by the very advertising they were quoting. In short, humans are very easily influenced.

Trump will repeat lies that have been debunked, because if he says it often enough people will still believe it. Infinite Pinnochio!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
As a Canadian and as someone who had never been terribly interested in such things, I didn't use to pay a lot of attention to US politics. Even so, I could see that Hillary was truly hated by some. But I never thought to ask why. Why was she so absolutely loathed by so many? Why did such deep hatred start? It was more than the usual political mudslinging, no?

Other than the fact that she represented the threat of a Democratic victory (by a 'leftist' woman no less), were there any particular unforgiveables in the minds of her detractors? I know about Benghazi, but what motivated that and other relentless lines of inquiry? Had she already committed some unpardonable sin in the eyes of those who pursue her even to this day?

Is it all about baking cookies? Or was it just a matter of opportunity - the internet allowing whole new levels of self-perpetuating, bootstrapping vitriol to emerge? Was it just a matter of timing? Was she just first victim of a new normal?

Hillary Clinton made the "mistake" of supporting health care back in the 90s. A first spouse is not an electoral position, so her getting the position was basically nepotism. She seemed pretty good on the policy side but not so much on the politics side (which never changed). You can't seriously expect a fiercely intelligent lawyer to act as some kind of ceremonial housewife for the eight years her husband was president. For whatever reason healthcare makes some conservatives scream, and they went on to influence (see first paragraph) their voters. Even the less gullible ones would later on believe in death panels and such nonsense, since they'd heard these comments so often they were now swimming in their collective subconscious.

Her being female put a target on her back. Well, her being female and wanting to be something more than a political housewife. She was criticized for keeping her maiden name (I understand that she isn't Mrs. Clinton, and just calls herself that for political purposes), for not smiling enough, for not being submissive, for being heard and not just seen, for standing by her man, and so forth.

There were even some valid criticisms, such as lies about what happened to her in Bosnia or the email server (an over-the-top attempt to break the records rules, which honestly are kind of stupid considering how many people essentially openly break those rules). She was the target of this kind of propaganda for decades, and when she geared up to run for president (such as becoming a senator, and later Secretary of State) the conservative drumbeat became a panic. Then she ran for president. The same old lies came out, plus new ones, all flying at the speed of the internet. She isn't very charismatic and is gaffe-prone, so there was new material to add to the old.

When I think of gaffes, I think of Rick Perry, but not the oops gaffe. I'm thinking of the mannequin gaffe. During the campaign, Perry attended an event in a small town. He joked about a mannequin near the audience being the most interested, or something like that. It wasn't all that funny, but it didn't fall flat. The journalists, who were live-filming the event onto social media, all got the joke. People watching on social media did not. Because Perry had already made gaffes suggesting he wasn't very bright, those people thought he mistook the mannequin for a real human being. The journalists started getting emails and tweets asking if Perry was such a dunce. The incredulous journalists said no, it was just a joke. Perry's press people said the same thing. Unfortunately people hundreds of miles away were spreading stories that Perry had stepped in it again. Modern-day journalists will often be told by a source "this isn't true" and will then go and repeat the untruth. Even mild gaffes can become catastrophic. See Mrs. Clinton and her comments on coal jobs...

Obviously other politicians have been the target of similar attacks. Barack Obama and John Kerry are good examples of this, and Obama himself drew intense hatred due to not being white. Having said that, neither of them were in the public eye for decades, so there simply wasn't enough material or previous work to sink them like that. (Kerry, unfortunately, was only slightly ahead of Bush, so the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't need to convince that many people...)