2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumChanging distrust to trust, my journey with Hillary
Last night I caught some of a panel conversation on PBS's News Hour on the upcoming presidential election and the thoughts of the six individuals selected to participate.
It did not look good for our candidate.
As a person who did not trust or like Hillary Clinton as recently as a few months back, I can tell you what it took for my thoughts (and feelings) to change. All I needed was to hear her speak. Not just once, and not briefly, but at length and frequently.
I have become a solid fan and advocate for her. I do trust her now, very much. I know we are living in a country with a compromised system where money matters more than votes sometimes. I don't blame her for that context. Her promise to work to overturn Citizen's United was a breakthrough point for me.
I know that her family's work, and her own, at the Clinton Foundation was designed and executed with the intention of alleviating suffering and making the world a better place.
I know she will work her heart out for us, and I'm ready to do the same for her. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when one exists. I'm not going to read the tens
Of thousands of emails and am very sure she navigated her time at the Secretary of State in a pono (righteous) manner.
Just thought since changing someone's mind is a rare enough event for us pa'a kiki hard heads, it merited mention, for what it's worth. Imua. (Onward)
MBS
(9,688 posts)Your story was a nice antidote.
I pray that panel was not necessarily a representative sample, and also that our fellow voters can travel in your path.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)ever been fair to Hillary? Why should this panel be any different?
MBS
(9,688 posts)For all its touting that they do in-depth stories, most of the political news has been covered as brief headlines or very superficial stories at the top of the show - no better than the networks.
. . .and that whoever chose that panel -well-let's just say that they could have done better, to say the least. As I watched them, I thought, "Where did they find these people?"
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)"P" and focus more on the $ in recent years. Its election reporting has been very disappointing for the most part.
Here is an article from earlier this year that discusses that: Why Are Public Broadcasters Parroting Conservative Talking Points? https://www.thenation.com/article/why-are-public-broadcasters-parroting-conservative-talking-points/
From the link:
PBSs other moderator, Gwen Ifill, continued in the same silly vein. Her first question, to Hillary, complained that she too has proposed fairly expansive ideas about government. She recalled Bill Clintons announcement that the era of big government is over as if it had been Hillary, not Bill, whod said it. Ifill went on: When asked your feelings about the federal government this week, 61 percent of New Hampshire Democrats told exit pollsters that they are angry or at least dissatisfied. Given what you and Senator Sanders are proposingan expanding government in almost every area of our livesis it fair for Americans who fear government to fear you? Note the rhetorical, right-wing sleight-of-hand here: How does the percentage of New Hampshire Democrats who are angry or at least dissatisfied with the government translate into a complaint about the size of government, much less an undefined fear of Hillary? Is it not at least equally possible that Americans are angry or dissatisfied at Congresss refusal to address a tax code that benefits the superwealthy or to rein in the predatory practices of the big banks?
Over and over, the so-called liberals at PBS paid tribute to right-wing talking points. Asking about the issue of money in politics, Woodruff put Clinton on the defensive over the fact that she has received about $10 million from just two wealthy financiers. Might it have been worth mentioning here, to give viewers some context, that the vast majority of the 358 families who have donated more than $100,000 to a candidate are supporting Republicans? What of Adelsons $150 million, or the $889 million the Koch brothers plan to raise and spend? Not a nickel of that money is going to Hillary or any other Democrat.
Foreign-policy questions were similarly skewed. Not a single one, for instance, addressed the threat of climate change. Instead, sounding like a Reagan-era Republican, Woodruff demanded of Sanders: When it comes to dealing with Russia how hard are you prepared to be? Are you prepared to institute further economic sanctions? Would you be prepared to move militarily if Russia moves on Eastern Europe?
And yes!!
MBS
(9,688 posts)The article is from February 2016, but it's still all too relevant . Unfortunately.
Thanks to Eric Alterman for staying consistently on this beat- for at least 15 years now, he's been pointing out the myth of the so-called "liberal media". The far-right still gleefully promotes this myth against all evidence to the contrary. (And, as always, the oblivious folks buy into it, too).
In addition to bowing to conservative talking points, the main problem for me is how the media also bow, regularly, to the people they perceive (emphasize on perceive) to be in power, and/or to people in a position to endanger their ratings or their jobs. Ditto policies. Especially among Washington reporters (plus the NYT, which chronically has this disease), there's a tropism to political power , in addition to the commercial pressure for ratings/book sales/ad buys. Really unhealthy. (Exhibit A: Bob Woodward. .)
Since the conservative mind-set has been poisoning the country since 1980, bowing to conservative talking points and tropism to power (or perceived power) have been pretty much the same thing.
And then there's been the disappearing budget for investigative reporting, even at the nation's top newspapers.
Yet if we've ever needed hard-hitting, honest, in-depth investigative reporting, it's NOW.
Edward R. Murrow, where are you?
: (
MFM008
(19,818 posts)glad to have you.
mahina
(17,693 posts)Nice to meet you!
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)welcome.
mahina
(17,693 posts)All paddles in!
LiberalFighter
(51,045 posts)Not everyone has the luxury to hear and see the work she has done. But another part of the puzzle that helps is understanding the structure of government of what can or can't be done.
mahina
(17,693 posts)it's tough to reach through the bs and change anyone's mind.
Looking forward to the debates, very much. Those will help.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Absolutely. From your brain to millions of others. If only.
Hekate
(90,774 posts)mahina
(17,693 posts)mountain grammy
(26,644 posts)like you took all my thoughts and made sense of them.. thank you. I'm with her now too. My husband is amazed it took me so long.
mahina
(17,693 posts)May we all get there in time, and get out the vote.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)Unless perhaps, it's after Election Day. Welcome!
I hope that we have NO Americans who are eedjits like those in the UK who voted FOR Brexit - or who didn't vote at all - and then wanted to vote AGAINST only AFTER they saw the results and had the realization sink in that they had a REALLY, REALLY good deal with the EU where they participated in the common market and all other bennies, but not in the Eurozone and not in Schengen. No other EU member had those perks. Now, whatever happens, the UK will NEVER have what it once had and what it did not realize that it had ... until it was too late.
We have an excellent Presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton. The choice could not be MORE stark in this election.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Wonderful. Welcome, Mahina, and thank you for your very encouraging post. I'm feeling dragged down about this point and have been hoping just getting to see her more would make a difference.