Metanarratives and Hillary's Honesty Gap
Do you want to know how McCain beats Hillary in November? In short, the same way George Bush beat Al Gore (minus the Supreme Court coup). As Rolling Stone explained in 2001 :
Last year, a review conducted by two nonpartisan groups, Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center, found that a stunning seventy-six percent of the Gore campaign coverage in early 2000 centered around two negative themes: that he lies and exaggerates, and that he's tarred by scandal. "We call it the metanarrative," says Tom Rosenstiel, director of Project for Excellence in Journalism. "Journalists are looking for a story line, a narrative device, that plays out over weeks and months, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is if they let the narrative overwhelm the facts, then it becomes a distorting lens. It can lead journalists to ignore and mischaracterize facts as they try to fit them into the story."For those whose memories of Bush are cloudy pre-9/11 or forget how much the press despised Al Gore prior to his public resurrection as a party elder and environmental evangelist, Google the words "invented the internet" to get an idea of how the zombie lies of media narratives refuse to die. All it takes is a few quotes out of context and a few dashes of hyperbole to turn someone into a "serial fibber" with a "Pinocchio problem".
It's pretty clear that this is the same sort of tactic that would be used to defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall if she were to become the Democratic nominee. Over the past week, she's been contradicted on a number of claims that she uses to bolster her "experience" over her rival. The first being her Ohio primary-motivated insistence that she opposed NAFTA, which Jake Tapper has been debunking at length :
I have now talked to three former Clinton Administration officials whom I trust who tell me that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed the idea of introducing NAFTA before health care, but expressed no reservations in public or private about the substance of NAFTA.For the Clinton campaign, we're not supposed to pay attention to what she did (which, according to her recently released schedules, included a handful of pro-NAFTA meetings) but what she said about NAFTA (but only privately, at least, until it was politically convenient).
Yet the Clinton campaign continues to propagate this myth that she fought NAFTA tooth and nail because she opposed the substance of the bill.The campaign claims over and over that she did not support NAFTA. That may be emotionally and intellectually true -- but actions speak louder than misgivings.
The even bigger, and more embarrassing, fib is Clinton's fictional account of her dangerous flight into Tuzla, Boznia which is becoming her campaign-killing YouTube moment. (via nitpicker)
Clinton's foreign policy credentials have also been questioned recently in regards to her role (or lack therof) in the Northern Ireland peace process :
Mrs Clinton's version of events has been challenged by Peter King, an Ulster Unionist Party negotiator at the Good Friday talks in 1998, who said: "Hillary Clinton was totally invisible at the actual negotiations.These incidents taken individually wouldn't necessarily be enough to derail a campaign, but how they play into the "metanarrative" speaks volumes about how her campaign might fare in the fall. For Gore in 2000, mentioning "Love Canal" and "invented the internet" were all it took to remind voters of the media storyline that Gore was a serial exaggerator. In the months between now and the general election, it's hard to imagine that the same wouldn't happen to Hillary Clinton, with scattered references to "Northern Ireland", "NAFTA", and "Tuzla" making their way into unrelated campaign coverage and subtly undermining her campaign.
"As far as I am concerned, Mrs Clinton was as relevant to peace in Northern Ireland as Tony Blair's wife or the ex-wife of Bertie Ahern [the Irish prime minister]."Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party in 1998, told The Daily Telegraph last week that Mrs Clinton's claims were a "wee bit silly".
This month, Terry McAuliffe, Mrs Clinton's campaign chairman, told CNN: "We would not have peace today had it not for Hillary's hard work in Northern Ireland."
Both Unionist and Nationalist negotiators told this newspaper that while Mrs Clinton's work with women's groups was positive her overall role was peripheral and she played no part in the gruelling negotiations that took years.
In fact, that narrative is already being shaped to a lesser extent as the Obama campaign capitalizes on recent polls showing that a majority of Americans don't believe that Clinton is trustworthy :
This honesty gap that separates Clinton from her two opponents will ultimately end her campaign, either in the primary or general elections. Whether or not any subsequent claims about Clinton are valid would be irrelevant (as Gore could attest) as long as they play into the preconceived notions that people have about the candidate. With a public that already distrusts her, getting frequently caught misspeaking (to use the Clinton campaign's preferred euphemism) only reinforces the media narrative that Hillary Clinton is a liar who will say anything it takes to become president.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This should be the defining meltdown of the public's opinion on her character. Is this Hilary's "Dean Scream"?
Unfortanately, it doesn't seem to matter for the mojority of her base (lower income white men, latinos and women). They've already decided that truthiness is a-okay with them. Forget the facts, forget how this will matter to educated swing voters in November, forget the moral authority that we've already lost in the world and forget good old fashioned integrity.
So true gjklbc - truth-FUL-ness seems to escape some of the voters. They will spin her Bosnia fairy tale to the point where it will be Obama's fault she "misspoke.
At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, American's public school system was consciously designed specifically to produce unquestioning followers, adults willing to be gogs in the wheel of industry. It hasn't changed a whole lot since. Most of us Americans aren't taught to question or use critical analysis until - and unless - we go to college, which was so long the domain of this country's elites. An that's why Hillary Clinton's supporters are mostly from the lower middle class - they are prime examples of an anachronistic educational system that teaches conformity, submission to authority and extremely concrete (no shades of gray) thinking from our earliest formative years. And they simply can't "grock" subtlety or self-evident contradictions. Pointing them out just irritates them (and they haven't got a clue as to why).
Gee she threw Sinbad under the bus quick.
She figured he would support Obama one day anyway.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. And a good one, because she looks people straight in the face when she tells her lies, she raises her hand up and waves it around to gesture across the entire crowd like the Pope blessing the people in the square, she nods her head in agreement with herself, as if to bolster the claim that what she says is true. And even when she's caught, she lies about that too.
That's what the 35 years of experience is about....
Well written.
Dishonesty, disloyalty, disrespect - these are the through-lines to Clinton's candidacy. Given that she is a remarkably intelligent woman, I simply don't understand why she has taken this tack. I consider it irrational for her to decide that the good of the party and the good of the country must take a back seat to her personal ambitions. She appears to be determined to take us all down with her.
She has a personality disorder. Just like our current president. And we know how that turned out.
Most puzzling of all is she and Bill elevating McCain above Obama. Does she want VP with McCain? Is it bitterness? Is it to run in 2012? Is it vindictiveness?
It's because he's the Clintons' second choice. Obama is WAY too much a democrat.
I'm a woman and I'd love to see, in my lifetime, the first female president - but not if it requires electing another parsing, spinning, manipulative liar. Bush was enough for one lifetime. I want someone I can trust to be honest - it doesn't matter to me at this point what gender or race they happen to be.
Hillary's lies are so numerous and frequent people have lost track and sort of just ignore them like a dull humming noise eventually disappears.
YOU STATED: "With a public that already distrusts her, getting frequently caught misspeaking (to use the Clinton campaign's preferred euphemism) only reinforces the media narrative that Hillary Clinton is a liar who will say anything it takes to become president.
Not to mention bringing peace to Ireland. That was a very good thing she did!
Sadly, all politicians lie. Hillary Clinton seems to be doing it more than the other two.
YOU STATED : "Sadly, all politicians lie."
But the mark of a good politician is telling a lie and not getting caught.
Once a mis-speaker, always a mis-speaker.
CBS new compared their film of the Bosnia trip with the speech by the one called a monster in the past and proved conclusively that if in the past you have been called a monster, there is a reason for
The comparison between Gore and the Clintons is not appropriate. The Clintons are famous for being untrustworthy in different things, in different ways, in most circumstances. They are habitual liars in the sense that they exaggerate what they do and make people believe that what they do are for other people's benefits but it is truly for themself. So the comparison serves to lessen the weight of the Clintons' untrusworthiness as if everyone does the same thing which is not true.
I think the writer was referring to the way the media paints a candidate with a particular narrative. But you are correct that the difference between Gore and Clinton is that the narrative about Hillary has the added benefit of being true. Al Gore actually was instrumental in providing funds for research and development of the Internet during his time as senator.
When Hillary visited Bosnia in March of 1996, was she in harm's way ? I remind you that in l997 the Pope's safety was threatened when 20 anti-tank mines were placed beneath a bridge that he was scheduled to cross. Roads near the bridge were closed while the bombs were removed and defused. The Pope then traveled by glass- topped, armored Popemobile along the road once referred as Sniper Alley (BBC) Hillary's visit was over a year earlier to an area considered to be the front lines. It had only been three months earlier that the Dayton peace accord had ended the three-year war (12-14-95) and there were some who were not happy about it. (BBC) "The deal was driven by President Clinton's team and NATO will move in to protect the area--" The clip shown above has her describing the evasive action taken while the plane was landing--a logical thing to do. Of course she was in harm's way and had everything to lose and nothing to gain other than lending her presence in a show of support for peace. It took courage and that is more than Bush/Cheney have shown.
Bad actor, you are thinking with your glands rather than what God gave you to think with, your brain.
I am working on my 78th year and my brain is all that I have left. Check out the comments given by "Bad Actor" and you will find that I am promoting a draft of Al Gore to replace both candidates in the race or at least an option of "none of the above" on the ballot. I think you younger people are the those with their heads in the clouds (sic).
So why didn't she tell that tale instead of making one up? Did reality need jazzing up?
Please read the article by Rappaport which appears in the San Francisco Chronicle on 3-26-08
. He was on the flight with Clinton and describes in detail regarding the instructions given to the passengers as they entered a War Zone. Sinbad was either "out to lunch" or
euphoric because he had a "gig" or currently backing Obama when he commented.
and that danger was so pronounced, they brought out a 15 year old girl (Chelsea) and an 8 year old girl. If what you say was even remotely true, do you honestly think those adults would have had them out there for a mere ceremony. Sheep like you are part of the problem. It was a lie and even if you give the "potential danger" garbage any credibility, it is still a far cry from her lie, which was that they were under sniper fire. This lie is no different than Bill's bold faced lie to America - I did not have sexual relations with that woman. They are dispicable.
This is your clip of Clinton speaking so you should review it and ask yourself why the passengers were told to sit on their bullet-proof vests if snipers were not a factor. According to the BBC, President Clinton was the driving force behind the Dayton Peace Accords which ended a 3 year + war--some might say he earned a BJ. But, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with that woman and that is what he tried to convey . As we all know, Starr spent over $35,000,000 in an investigation of the Clintons and came up empty. Mr. Winky, who or what do represent ?
Why won't Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi act???
Because Hillary's got everyone looking towards Pennsylvania so it's hard to say to those voters "You don't get a vote". They're going to June and it'll be a disaster for the Democratic party.
They are afraid of her. For good reason.
Howard Dean is doing what he can. It is not in his power, as chair of the DNC, to endorse anyone, and he certainly has no personal influence with the Clintons, as they and their camp did everything they could do to oppose his election as chair of the DNC, wanting to keep all the power within the Washington beltway and wanting to continue the marginalize the rest of the country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
