Hillary Clinton and her campaign got hit hard with a double blast from two different MSM directions --- both painted very negative portraits of Mrs. Clinton and/or her campaign
First, Jack Shafer a senior media editor at Politico puts it right out there --- "Hillary Clinton Can’t Run for President -- So she’s pushed her whole campaign into the slow lane." --- "Suspended animation would look vigorous compared to what Clinton is now doing." --- Think about that and think of the implications [Also get a load of one of the worst Hillary photos yet --- it's a Hillary photo that looks like a witch-like caricature]
Then Ron Fournier lays out what the Hillary Clinton battle plan against Peter Scheizer's book is going to be: Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built; Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media; Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons will get tarred by everything -- don't forget the old one about the "nuts and sluts"
By far the more devastating piece comes from Jack Shafer at "Politico" --- it is a concept piece and it is full of analysis. However, a deadly threat to Hillary and to her capaign is the introduction of Shafer's new negative terminology. More deadly than that is the reinforced negative imagery for Hillary Clinton as a person and as a candidate for president
SHAFER"S ANALYSISAccording to Mr Shafer, "Thousands have run for president, but only one candidate has ever unrun for the office: Hillary Clinton. Ever since she finally announced her entry into the contest a couple of weeks ago, she has been unrunning with ferocity.... Why is Clinton unrunning? If the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination were a Little League baseball game, the party would have already recognized Clinton’s insurmountable lead and invoked the mercy rule to give the victory to her. By unrunning, she avoids the intense political debate that would only call attention to her underfunded, unannounced and relatively unknown rivals, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee and Joe Biden, all of whom are [now also un-unrunning at their own] paces...." (See "Hillary Clinton Can’t Run for President..." by Jack Shafer, 4/21/15, Politico/ The Fourth Estate [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-cant-run-for-president-117209.html#.VTgH6dJViko]).
Later in the "Politico" article, Shafer said, "... With nine months until the first presidential primary, Clinton can’t afford to actively run for president. Indeed, if she had her druthers, she probably wouldn’t even be unrunning now. She was pressured by the constant press attention about when she was going to announce and the email controversy. That sort of press attention was positive media attention she couldn’t control, and only by announcing could she dial it down. The email controversy was negative media attention she couldn’t control without the attention-deflecting machinery of a campaign. Indeed, she may be the first politician to announce for the presidency in order to decrease attention in her candidacy. *** She’s succeeded wildly. Her coffees, roundtables, discussions and “spontaneous” meetings with voters have immersed her campaign into a box of dry ice and slowed it to the lowest metabolic levels. Suspended animation would look vigorous compared to what Clinton is now doing. This is smart. Steady coverage on the inside of newspapers is exactly what she wants...."
SHAFER'S IMAGERY --- HILLARY AS GRANNY DRIVING IN THE SLOW LANEMore important than any of Shafer's material as insightful analysis, which it surely is --- Shafer's article contains new terminology about the campaaign an the development of piece of imagery of Hillary as a candidate.
The most ,emorable image of Candidate Hillary Clinton that might have come out of Shafer's article is that of "Granny moving in the slow lane" [The picture from Getty images that accompanied Shafer's article in "Politico" is also priceless]. Shafer's termnology and phraseology is equally memorable and descriptive: Hillary's "...coffees, roundtables, discussions and 'spontaneous' meetings ...immersed her campaign into a box of dry ice and slowed it to the lowest metabolic levels...."; "... [s]uspended animation would look vigorous... compared to ... Clinton..."; " Listening tours (or sessions) ... add a little fabric softener to [Hillary's] starchy image, buffing [Mrs Clinton's scaly reptilian exteriors down to kid-leather smoothness...."
THE RON FOURNIER ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL JOURNALRon Fournier is right up front about it --- "I don't know what's in Peter Schweizer's book. But I know what the Clintons are capable of.... " (See "The Questions Hillary Clinton Doesn't Want Answered About the Clinton FoundationI don't know what's in Peter Schweizer's book. But I know what the Clintons are capable of" by Ron Fournier, 4/22/15, The National Journal [http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-clinton-foundation-ron-fournier-20150422]).
His first full paragraph takes us all back to the good old days of the Clinton's: "Gennifer Flowers. Cattle futures. The White House travel office. Rose Law Firm files. The Lincoln Bedroom. Monica Lewinsky. And now, the Clinton Foundation. What ties these stories together is the predictable, paint-by-numbers response from the Bill and Hillary Clinton political operation...." The Fournier gives us this gameplan from the old Clinton playbook:
"1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts...."
Fournier also said this: "... The seedy side of the [Clinton] foundation is a legitimate campaign issue. While the Clintons deserve credit for making foundation donations largely transparent, other activities raise serious questions. They violated an ethics agreement with the Obama White House. Hillary Clinton deleted most emails she sent and received as secretary of State, including any concerning the foundation or its donors.... What did donors expect from the Clintons? Did they receive favors in return? Why did the Clintons do business with countries that finance terrorism and suppress the rights of women? Did family and friends benefit from their ties to the foundation? And, in a broader sense, what do the operations of the foundation say about Hillary Clinton's management ability and ethical grounding?"
Fournier then describes what has happened when the Clinton slime machine was unleashed in the past; and now in the wake of the release of material in the New York Times about the book by Peter Schweizer. He concludes that the wild conspiracy theories are presently more likely to be the product of Hillary's defenders like David Brock than those reporting on Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash...".