During Monday's debate, Hillary Clinton referenced, as an example of Donald Trump's misogyny, his fat shaming of a former Miss Universe. Trump is retaliating by bringing up Bill Clinton's sexual history which, says Trump, was "enabled" by Hillary. And just to remind its readers of that history, the Trump enabling Fox News.com has a nice slide show.
It's no secret that Fox News is, as is said, in the tank for Trump. And it's not just the Fox "news" channel that provides back-up. As we can see from today's lede, the Fox News website is doing its gosh darned, fair & balanced best to validate Trump talking points which, as I noted above, is all about nasty Bill and nasty Hillary. (Meanwhile, pay no attention to the philandering and thrice married resident of the Trump Tower!)
Today's big bold Fox News.com's lede proclaims "The Return of the Clinton Women, Surrogates Target Hillary's Role in Husband's Affairs as Trump Takes on Former Miss Universe." The headline sits above photos of Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey. Their faces are grouped around a photo of Bill Clinton.
As Fox visual propaganda, it doesn't get any better than this. The headline establishes, as Fox Fact, that Hillary had a role, not an alleged role, in her husband's affairs - a meme that just happens ;) to match exactly what Trump and his surrogates are saying. Well, color me shocked.
The linked article reinforces the agitiprop about Hillary's supposed mistreatment of women. (See, she ain't no feminist...) The title: "Trump Camp Returns Fire, Target's Clintons' Treatment of Women." The accompanying video, a compilation of Trump and his surrogates spreading their toxicity about nasty Bill and nasty Hillary, reinforces the Very Important Fox Propaganda Message!
But on to the "slide show." The first slide shows Gennifer Flowers. The accompanying text notes that old, sly dog Bill denied his affair with her until she produced incriminating tapes. Ah-Ha! The second is Juanita Brodderick, a woman who accused Bill Clinton of rape but never pressed charges. The text notes that Brodderick claims that Hillary Clinton "knew about the incident."
The third is Paula Jones. The summary includes her claim that Bill Clinton exposed himself to her. The fourth is Monica Lewinsky. The text makes sure to mention that Clinton "was forced" to admit his misdeeds. Last, but not least, is Kathleen Willey who, according to the text, claims that Bill "groped and kissed her" inappropriately.
So if Fox is "fair & balanced," shouldn't we be treated to a montage of Donald Trump's paramours? But even better, how bout a slide show of women who allege to have been sexually harassed by Roger Ailes?!
Let’s see what happens next Sunday. Maybe Trump can somehow calm himself down before then. I don’t think Trump could ever contain himself for very long – his entire history has been about self-promotion and self-celebration. Asking him to hold back on that is truly like asking him to not be Trump. To my mind, the only reason he’s even been able to stay partly competitive has been the success of the right wing in smearing the Clintons over the past 25 years. And that’s an object lesson in why intelligent people need to keep their eyes open when it comes to biased outlets like Fox News and right wing radio. With this election, these guys have very nearly been able to sway enough of the voters to dislike a candidate enough to vote in a different fashion than they otherwise would have. To the backers of Fox News, who do think incrementally, that’s a huge win. If that doesn’t scare people, it should.
“In tape, Clinton characterized much needed young Sanders supporters, calls self ‘center left, to the center right’”
“Mike Huckabee: Hillary Clinton is an elitist snob”
“Conway: Clinton tries to distract from her checkered record”
“Journalist: Clinton is the one who defamed women”
“Women who know Trump defend the GOP candidate’s character”
“It’s Alive: FBI files reveal how Clinton server was created in K Street lab”
Fair and balanced indeed! ;^)
The hatred of this group truly knows no bounds. Some right wing radio hosts have openly enjoyed the notion of Clinton being perceived as feeble or gravely ill. These guys were counting on the idea of a big, strong Donald Trump taking it to a weak, hapless Clinton in front of a record TV audience and thus ensuring a massive GOP sweep on November 8. Sadly for them, this is not what happened. Clinton was strong and confident in the debate, perhaps a little over-prepped in some areas, but clearly strong. Trump was clearly unprepared but attempted to make up for that with the usual bullying tactics. Except that he couldn’t resist almost immediately going defensive whenever challenged. Result – Trump repeatedly lost his composure and his focus, and came across to that record TV audience as petulant, temperamental and shallow. Which frankly isn’t too far off from the truth, from everything we’ve seen. Clinton came across to the audience as calm, assured, and frankly as presidential.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to any one to see Clinton’s numbers once again rising – 538’s aggregates are now showing Florida flipping back into her corner, with North Carolina and Ohio quickly tipping that way as well. How has Trump responded? By obsessing over Alicia Machado (and smearing and slandering her with early AM tweets) and by trying to jump in the gutter about all the previously litigated Bill Clinton gossip. I honestly don’t see how that approach does anything but please already-in-the-tank folks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. More moderate voices are clearly worried that this is his “presidential approach” to the numbers. Even Newt Gingrich sounded openly worried about this last night. Some right wing voices are trying to spin the debacle as Trump playing “rope-a-dope” with Clinton so that he can suddenly act calm and sage and presidential at the next debate on the 9th. I’m not sure I’m buying that one.
The right wing openly played the card that Trump would brilliantly psych Clinton out of her preparation and leave her intimidated and incoherent. This obviously backfired, and yet we see them all doubling down now, hoping that the “Full Gutter” approach will somehow rattle Clinton or at least smear her enough to stop her momentum. This is the same approach as the losing gambler in Las Vegas who throws his car keys on the blackjack table because THIS hand is going to be the one that changes his bad luck. I don’t expect a different result than the one that usually greets that gambler.
I fully expect that Trump will come out swinging in the next debate, and that he will attempt to control the narrative by repeatedly seguing into new attacks on Clinton with every question. The problem he’ll have is that the “town hall” format won’t give him a lot of opportunities for that, and I don’t expect Anderson Cooper to give him that much leeway. (The right wing wants him to ignore Cooper, but you can’t do that in a moderated debate) My hope for Clinton is that she continues the same careful preparation for the second debate that she did for the first one, and that she just lets Trump be Trump. Based on his current performance, that can’t hurt her at all.
I also note that most of the women cited by the right wing here were actually brought to the forefront in the 1990s BY the right wing. These guys want us to forget that they were the ones really pushing these stories 20-25 years ago. Rush Limbaugh went to town with this stuff, even after he was repeatedly discredited for it when it came to the more questionable accounts he was pushing. (Some of the women gave wildly different versions of what happened between them and Clinton, so that there was no way to really know what happened. Others were clearly trying to litigate the Clintons into paying them off. And contrary to the right wing mythology, all of these women did have their stories heard – the problem was that many of the stories were simply not believable.)
I find it interesting that the right wing wants to condemn Hillary Clinton for defending herself and her family in the 1990s against an organized and well-funded right wing attack. If Trump stays on this course, it doesn’t really help him that much. If he pushes the adultery angle, Clinton can bring up Trump’s repeated affairs. If he pushes the “Clinton attacks women” angle, she can point everyone back to the actual history and let the public make up their own mind where the real mud lies. Either way, the approach is both desperate and pathetic.
It is possible that Trump will do better in the second debate, and that Clinton will go in overconfident, but it doesn’t feel that way at the moment. Trump is in the middle of a memorably wild meltdown, at exactly the time that the right wing cannot watch him have one. Early voting is already starting. When voters go to the polls, I strongly doubt the right wing wants them to have this be their lasting image of Trump…
CNN’s recent biography of Trump had a guy who admitted quite readily to having abetted Trump’s infedelities by inviting Marla to dinner in full and never-disappointed expectation that she would get up mid-meal and disappear into a big limousine that Donald had sent for her. That biography was meant to be “friendly” but the Donald refused to make a personal contribution and he didn’t like the end result. Understandably so.
My very first boss (over five decades ago) once said that we should never but never mistreat or even ignore the little people, no matter how low down on the ladder. You never knew when you might run into them again and perhaps even need their help.
Isn’t it funny that Trump’s first reaction to Hillary’s introduction of Miss Machada was not “That’s a lie” but rather: Where did you find her?"? He said that three times. Wouldn’t surprise me were other people he’s insulted, mistreated or ignored start speaking up. More than a few of them may be motivated by a desire to be in the limelight but one or two with totally credible stories would be enough to sway some of the more principled voters.
The hypocrisy of so many evangelicals (small “e” intentional) is yet another aspect that appalls me. Those who would readily swallow the idea that Hillary enabled Bill’s infidelities, would not countenance the same accusation against Ivana. I agree with them on the latter but really wish they’d be more consistent.
Well, that settles it.
I’m DEFINITELY not voting for Bill Clinton in this presidential election!
;~)>
The headline establishes, as Fox Fact, that Hillary had a role, not an alleged role, in her husband’s affairs
Right — because, what woman WOULDN’T do all she could to encourage and aid her husband in having multiple affairs . . .
.