Democrats don’t fight over the size of their presidential candidate’s genitals. But that’s little reason for Democrats to gloat in 2016. If Democratic officials get their way — at this writing, that seems more likely than not — Hillary Clinton will win her party’s nomination partly due to the same reason as Donald Trump seems poised to win his: massive ignorance on the part of the voters.
The result will be a yuge disaster.
At a Democratic debate on February 4th, Hillary Clinton was asked about the three speeches for which Goldman Sachs infamously paid her $675,000 as recently as 2013. (Would she release the text of those talks, so the public could judge whether she had promised special favors to the corrupt Wall Street firm? “I’ll look into it,” she promised.
By the next morning, The New York Times reported, it was clear that the Clinton campaign planned to stonewall the people’s right to know: “it did not appear that much looking was underway.”
“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” Clinton’s pollster told reporters. This, like many things that come out of the Clinton spin machine, was not true. Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide in large part because Democrats in the Granite State believed she was covering up something shady in her Wall Street speeches.
More than a month later, at the Flint debate on March 6th, she was still taking flak for Speechgate. By then Hillary had settled on a line about as far removed from “I’ll look into it” as “stick it where the sun don’t shine”: “I have said,” she said through her plastic grin, “and I will say again, I will be happy to release anything I have as long as everybody else does too.” Which is nonsense: no one expects Republican candidates to yield to demands from a participant in a Democratic primary.
For an old guy, Bernie struck like a viper: “I’m your Democratic opponent. I release it. Here it is!” the senator scoffed, throwing invisible pieces of paper at the audience. “There ain’t nothing! I don’t give speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Bill and Hill have raked in $153 million in speaking fees since 2001. Which is more than the GDP of three countries. But how many Democratic primary voters know that she is one of the most personally corrupt leaders ever, or that the Clintons have probably sold more political access to corporations than all other American politicians in history combined? Based on tracking polls and her current delegate lead, roughly the same number of Democrats is aware of Hillary’s record as Republicans who believe in science.
Granted, the fix is in for Hillary. The DNC scheduled debates at times when no one would get to see Bernie. The wildly antidemocratic superdelegate system designed to prevent progressives from getting nominated has been working perfectly. Super Tuesday, another scheme to conservatize races by frontloading southern states, went to her. And corporate media doesn’t cover him. Given the obstacles, he’s kicking ass.
Nevertheless, watching Hillary’s tortured defense of her indefensible refusal to cough up her Wall Street transcripts the other night, I was struck by how easily a voter who comes to Clinton v. Sanders cold, ignorant of the two candidates’ records, could conclude that she’s more qualified for the presidency. She’s great — if you don’t know your stuff.
Judging from the results so far, many Democratic voters are voting based on vague impressions rather than the hard facts — which makes them no smarter than the conservative evangelists backing the vulgar, thrice-married, breast-ogling Trump.
Befitting her long tenure at the devil’s crossroads of big money and big government, the former First Lady and Secretary of State came off as far more polished than her rival, the independent socialist Senator from one of the nation’s tiniest states.
Hillary isn’t president yet, but she played one on TV. She namedropped and Beltway-wonked and reminded us that she “traveled around the world on your behalf as Secretary of State and went to 112 countries” (attending state dinners and sightseeing is what passes for a hardship). Hapless Bernie, arrested during the civil rights movement at the same time Hillary was campaigning for right-wing racist Barry Goldwater — why would any black voter support her against him? — swung and missed a slow, low pitch right across home plate, unable to summon up a good answer to what “racial blind spots” he had.
(Correct answer: “I’ll never be black. So I’ll never know what it’s like to be black. As president, I will be surrounded by black people and I will listen to them.”)
As usual, Hillary looked the part. She rocked her straight-out-of-central-casting first woman president look with an overpriced designer Dr. Evil jacket that evoked the catty, nasty dictator played by Kate Winslet in the dystopian “Insurgent” movies.
Thanks to HD TV, Bernie’s off-the-rack suit highlighted his dandruff.
Hillary looks presidenty. She talks presidentish. A lot of voters don’t know how badly she screwed them, especially by pushing NAFTA and free trade. So she is favored to win the Democratic nomination. But she’s a terrible candidate. Tracking polls show that she has lower odds than Bernie of defeating Trump in November.
Just wait until Donald and his shiny new best friend the GOP establishment — who will fall in line, they always do! — start reminding voters of the colossally corrupt record Hillary has trying to run away from. Bernie has been too polite to call her out. Donald? He’ll be beyond brutal.
As they say in P.R., all the marketing in the world can’t compensate for a bad product.
Hello, President Trump.
(Ted Rall is the author of “Bernie,” a biography written with the cooperation of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. “Bernie” is now on sale online and at all good bookstores.)
(Ted Rall is the author of “Bernie,” a biography written with the cooperation of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. “Bernie” is now on sale online and at all good bookstores.)
15 Comments.
“The Best P.R. in the World Can’t Sell a Terrible Product”
Seems to me that the article explains quite succinctly how P.R. can sell a terrible product. It doesn’t even have to the the best P.R.
It does, however, require ignorance on the part of the buyer. (hey, Henri – I’m familiar with caveat emptor .. is there a similar phrase for “buyer get a fuckin’ clue already” ?
For what it’s worth, right now, Sanders is up about 4.5% in Michigan, with 25% of the precincts reporting in.
Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton is supposed to win Michigan by 20%, according to the polls. If Sanders can win by 11%, he will (about, the precinct math is always a little wobbly) have the necessary number of delegates to meet his target (i.e., his gap will not increase). The few delegates he’ll win in Mississippi will close that gap a very little bit.
But imagine what it will do to the Sanders base (and the Clinton base) if Sanders wins a state he was supposed to lose by 20%? Even if he wins, literally, by a single vote?
«…. [Ms Clinton ]“traveled around the world on your behalf as Secretary of State and went to 112 countries” (attending state dinners and sightseeing is what passes for a hardship). Now, Ted, no reason to be nasty – after all, dodging bullets at Tuzla aeroport back in 1996 must be regarded as hardship, even if the bullets were as fictitious as most of things on Ms Clinton’s «record» (the ones she chooses to release, in any case)….
CrazyH, I ‘m unaware of any phrase that precisely corresponds to your colloquialism, but Latin does entertain the concepts of diligentia and prudentia. I remember reading an interview with a Black voter in the South Carolina Democratic primary, who, when asked about Mr Sanders, replied «We don’t know him». From what I understand, US media have not been working too hard to inform the US public about Mr Sanders’ record (which is quite extensive – he’s been running for different political offices since 1972), so that this voter’s ignorance can perhaps be excused. How much due diligence can one reasonably expect of voters choosing a candidate for the country’s highest office ? What does «not knowing» Mr Sanders till us about Mr Sanders, about the voter himself, and about the state of the country’s media ?…
Henri
> What does «not knowing» Mr Sanders till us … about the state of the country’s media?
That in this country, it’s the state media.
«> What does «not knowing» Mr Sanders till us … about the state of the country’s media?
That in this country, it’s the state media.»
Rather, I suggest, CrazyH, that both the state and the media are under corporate control….
With regard to«travel[ling] around the world on your behalf as Secretary of State and [going] to 112 countries», the following analysis by Professor Hamid Dabashi analysis of the difference between Ms Clinton and Mr Trump (http://www.aljazeera.com//indepth/opinion/2016/03/salesman-politicians-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-160306120204257.html) might be of interest….
Henri
> th the state and the media are under corporate control
I don’t dispute that in the least, but my phrasing made better word play. 😉
«I don’t dispute that in the least, but my phrasing made better word play. ?»
You’re a past master, CrazyH !… 🙂
Henri
I think the part that I find most troublesome about that is that it implies that the voter in question “knows” Hillary Clinton.
«I think the part that I find most troublesome about that is that it implies that the voter in question “knows” Hillary Clinton.»
Not, I piously hope and believe, in the biblical sense….
Henri
America’s slave-population descendants are supposed to automatically be in Hillary’s corner because her husband was popularly advertised as being our nation’s first “Black President.” Well, like what happens in most Black communities, it’s Black people who fuck over other blacks than White people even care about.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
DanD
Professor Alexander makes vital points. Alas, the results of the Democratic party primaries in the southern states of the US would seem to indicate that many US blacks are listening to their pastors, rather than to people like Professor Alexander or Spike Lee. I can’t help but be reminded of the Irish and the Roman Catholic Church, even if that’s a situation which is slowly improving….
Henri
Well, we’re all about to find out. One way or the other. If Sanders doesn’t win something like two dozen delegates more than Clinton, I really don’t see a path to victory. It would still be possible, but I think it would be pretty much like getting a hole in one on the 18th hole to win.
Either way, we’ll all know in a few hours.
Well, alex_the_tired, it looks as if you people – and we in the rest of the world – are about to suffer a remake of a film from 1939, now under the title «Herr Drumpf goes to Washington»….
Henri
@Mr. Tired
Delegate count is 1,132 Clinton v. 818 Sanders, with 2300 left to go. (Ignoring the stupor delegates.) So, yeah, while it’s *possible* – for our man to pull it out, it’s not looking so good. Still & all, that’s pretty damned impressive considering the original odds were ‘a million to one.’
Even if not nominated, he has most assuredly changed the political discourse in the US. It’s big enough that the DNC Illuminati have to take notice. Ted has often called OWS a failure – I say that Bernie’s rise started with OWS. Again, they made a big enough change in the discourse that Bernie’s message found fertile ground.
@Mr. Day
Trupmkopf goes to Washington? Dog forbid, but it certainly looks like he’s going to the convention. The sanest one of the bunch – Kasich is even further behind than Bernie – he won’t be taking it. Trump is only favored by about 25% of the electorate, and the moderates always make the difference in presidential politics, to me that says he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance of occupying the oval office.
So what happens if Trump is actually elected? The American Sheeple will have another golden opportunity to learn from their mistakes. They should have learned back in Reagan’s day, they obviously didn’t. I figured Bush would wake a few up – but it was evidently too few.
So, Trump? Okay, it’s not like he can make global warming or overpopulation worse, nor can he take less than the zero action we’re already taking. While not everybody in the world hates us, I doubt he’ll make that substantially worse, either.
He would lower the GOP’s already low credibility. He’d fracture the party and the combination of the two would almost guarantee that the dems would wind up with a solid majority in congress. Those dems will remember Mr. Sanders’ popularity while applauding Trump’s unpopularity. That combination can only play out in the people’s favor.
Re: “The Best P.R. in the World Can’t Sell a Terrible Product”
Indeed, that’s why terrible product sellers invented “brand loyalty.”