An interesting thing happened after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas, Nevada — corporate media talking heads declared Hillary Clinton the winner, even though the only thing she did was come across as a weirdly-calculating politician.
Progressive media watchdog FAIR.org reported:
The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.
What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.
As I told my wife after the debate, it’s too bad Bernie Sanders is a socialist, because he was essentially the only authentic person on stage.
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Web just came across as an irascible grump; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee came across as a dazed child; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley just came across as another run-of-the-mill politician.
The same media juggernaut that tried to convince Americans for months that a groundswell of support for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign existed — despite zero polling evidence to back such claims — now wants viewers to believe Mrs. Clinton trounced Sen. Sanders.
Here is an example of Clinton’s stellar debate skills:
Anderson Cooper: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?
Clinton:Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.
Cooper: Is there a policy difference?
Clinton: Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college, how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.
Translation: Vote for me because I’m a woman! Seriously. I’m a woman. That’s important.
The former secretary of state offered zero differences between a future Clinton administration and the Obama administration — other than her chromosomes — and yet she was deemed the debate winner.
When it came to a very specific question from moderator Anderson Cooper — “Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” — Clinton simply didn’t answer the question. She went off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.
Sanders, however, answered the question.
Anderson Cooper: Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders.
Sanders: Black lives matter. And the reason — the reason those words matter is the African American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail, or their kids.
Is it rather repugnant to rhetorically elevate the lives of black Americans above the lives of all Americans? Yes.
At least Sen. Sanders, however, had the guts to give a straight answer in front of millions of viewers.
A woman who casts herself as qualified for the position of commander in chief because of her estrogen levels, while simultaneously refusing to answer direct questions, cannot be the winner of a presidential debate.
Corporate media pundits are less interested in telling the truth than they are with pushing their own specific visions for the world. That is why so many people rightfully do not trust what they see on cable news or what is served to them from the official Facebook news feed.
As the 2016 presidential campaign gains steam, it is always important to consume news with a discerning eye. The networks and publications telling you they can be trusted are often lying.