Clinton’s Inevitability and the 2008 Elections
Published by Fred Soto• December 27th, 2007
RSS News Feed
2008 U.S. Elections - Manipulation and Coercion Of the Masses
There are many ways to rig an election and ensure that one candidate is favored over another. For example, it’s possible to manipulate — illegally — machines to favor a candidate, use voter caging tactics to deny ordinary citizens their voting rights, gerrymandering and redistricting plans split the votes of already disenfranchised groups. Finally, as in California, partisan organizations or parties might attempt to destroy the voting (electoral) system in order to “steal an election”.
One of the more subtle and destructive forms of “rigging” an election occurs in the arena of public opinion. It’s rarely studied or denounced because it isn’t a form of manipulation that can be easily spotted or stopped. Planting seeds of doubt or “inevitability” are a political strategist’s best friend.
the diabolical genius of Karl Rove and GOP political strategists
In 1999, the GOP was angling for Evangelical Christians because of the events that helped bring down Clinton’s presidency. The issue of infidelity and “lying” to America about it was an impossible hurdle for Clinton to overcome, but he was ending his second term in office so the faith was used to convince Americans to reach out to God.
It was a subtle form of manipulation, a fair one at that. People just ‘felt’ like steering right was the only way to go as the 2000 elections approached. I can’t say with certainty that most Americans who voted for Bush arrived at that conclusion on their own. It’s possible they were subtly guided by the rhetoric that took place in the public discourse.
Nationalism - God and Country Turned the Election in 2004
Again, this subtle war on independent thinking took Americans by storm and John Kerry’s campaign was derailed by the same people that hanged Bill Clinton in 2000. I’m not going to argue whether they were right or wrong, the point of this is the genius (and danger) of political manipulation.
With genius comes serious consequences, however, because it’s possible to out-think yourself if you aren’t careful. As a political strategist, when you’ve figured out how to manipulate people, what is to stop you from doing it again and again? What happens when you start believing your own subtle deceptions? Let’s take a look at what is going on in the public opinion right now. I think it’s important that people understand how they are being manipulated, if ever so subtly. The following segment requires critical thinking and creativity, but it isn’t difficult to follow if you’ve been paying attention to politics and the players that make it all happen.
Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy Was Sabotaged Long Ago
Inevitability
Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is one of the best examples of the diabolical genius of Karl Rove. For some people, this will seem “obvious” or “out there”, while other’s may experience a “Eureka!” moment. The point, however, is that manipulation is happening and it is working out well for the GOP, all things considered.
How do you destroy a candidate that wields the Clinton name. Regardless of whether you loved or hated Bill Clinton, if you are a political strategist that needs to end the Clinton campaign what is the best way to do it?
Answer: Plant a self-destructing mechanism in the minds of the general public.
Karl Rove was the first strategist that I heard planting the seeds of destruction in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. First, he publicly reached out to Hillary Clinton and then dropped a political bombshell when he declared Hillary Clinton our next President. Analysts and journalists ate this stuff up and the American people have bought into the inevitability campaign. Soon after this happened, President Bush was quick to declare Hillary Clinton future President.
The worst possible endorsement for ANY Democrat to have is an endorsement from President Bush. Couple that with “Rudy Giuliani can defeat Hillary Clinton” rhetoric and you have a sure GOP win — or so they thought. The problem with inevitability, as Karl Rove knows, is that the only thing inevitable about elections is uncertainty, confusion, propaganda and manipulation in the months that come before the primaries arrive.
Understanding “Inevitability” - Why would a Republican declare a Democrat as inevitable, especially when that Democrat happens to be Hillary Clinton? The conservative blogs were all over inevitability when it started, it was a brilliant move because it got everyone talking about Hillary Clinton. The Master of Puppets, Mr. Rove was no doubt sleeping with a smile on his face, because he knew what inevitability was going to do to the political discourse. It’s manipulation at its finest and yes, it IS genius.
What inevitability did:
- It created an illusion of victory and this helped give Hillary Clinton a false sense of hope that she would win the primary and election with ease. Clinton was strong and even brilliant during the debates, but Barack Obama was no fool and in the end, it worked against Clinton who spent so much time campaigning against the phantom GOP candidate. She never distinguished herself from her Democratic rivals.
- Triangulation is impossible to achieve when you are declared future President. Expectations were very high and Hillary Clinton allowed herself to believe that she was in-fact inevitable. Karl Rove knows well how triangulation made Bill Clinton the best American -politician- there ever was. Hillary Clinton almost pulled the strategy off herself until she tripped over issues of immigration that are NOT easy to answer if you sit in the center and do the dance.
- When you’re at the top, the only way to go is down! Clinton hasn’t been able to recover from the overwhelming expectations placed on her by the GOP and DNC. Her inability to please both sides with her ’safe’ answers was inevitable, hence making the “inevitability” label something more of a snare than a boost for her campaign.
- Hillary Clinton’s inevitability was destined for failure because nobody likes a cocky favorite. Republican and Democratic opponents were poised to go after her the moment she fell from her perch. Our nation isn’t a huge fan of certainty come election time. Inevitability gave Americans a reason to despise Hillary Clinton. While she didn’t entirely earn the villain tag, she was deprived the role of the underdog going into 2008. Hillary Clinton’s biggest crime was acting like a politician, Karl Rove was betting on it and the GOP won as a result.
Political manipulation is how the game is played and Clinton allowed herself to be snared by rhetoric. The worst thing going forward for the GOP and Karl Rove is Hillary Clinton wins. Rove can then say “you see, I was right about Clinton’s inevitability!” However, if she loses, everything will go as planned. It’s like when you bet against your team to win the Super Bowl. It’s easier to reason that “Well, if I lose the bet at least my team wins and I’ll be happy, but if I win the bet, my team loses, but I have something to show for it!”
Same thing happened with inevitability, it was the bait and the public fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she fell for it too. Up to this point, not a single political analyst has brought this issue to light and I think it’s a testament to how far America has fallen with respect to political discourse and independent thinking. Then again, maybe people are too lazy to think about how and why people do the things they do, especially when they seem to defy all logic.
Finally, once all of the political sparring has taken place, the negative response to ‘inevitability’ closes the deal. Republicans are put in a fight or flight situation and it inspires them to spew the “Anyone but Clinton” rhetoric. Meanwhile they wear their “Bush Clinton Bush Clinton… JUST SAY NO in 2008″ t-shirts and even encourage Democrats to look elsewhere. e.g. The latest political spin is how the Republicans love Barack Obama and are secretly hoping he wins so that they can vote for him. (Rolls eyes) In politics, irrational moves should always be looked upon with a skeptical eye, they are very likely calculated and intended to produce a result.
If you haven’t yet done so, please subscribe to the White House Intel Report — RSS News Feed. (daily updates & costs you nothing)
tags:Elections, hillary clinton, Karl Rove, manipulation, Politics, rhetoric, Strategy
Fred Soto is an Attorney and Entrepreneur from the Silicon Valley.
Email this author | All posts by Fred Soto
anyone who participates in america’s sham democracy is a fool. who cares which side wins? the winner of every election is always the same: big business and special interest groups. the losers: the american people.
can we just give up already?
the joke is on us, even I support ms.Hillary on the lesser of evils campaign, and hope her presidency will help reduce the rampant sexism. Honestly though, with a mind, we can see an election full of possibilities for change, yet we elect to look for nothing but a stasis thats led us to failure. Ignoring Kucinich as he has already been pegged, no candidate presents the knowledge, nor the mindset of a leader who wishes to enact change. Unfortunately Hillary will probably be bogged by an irrational wave of discontent fueled by the powers that be and her candidacy will be sunk. Such is the ways of a so called democracy, realize that corporations dictate your life, not politicians, since Mr. Robert Kennedy was taken out they have take power, notice the leaders since, compared to his projected policies, and you will see. Also take a glance at our prison population compared to other countries, per 10,000 people we have almost 200 people more than the next highest country, Russia. We who preach a free democracy, have more people in prison than any other country in the world…ironic, eh? It all coincides with the war on drugs, and the Bush family’s investment in prisons, but who am I to talk..? noone but a malcontent I guess…
Your gripe regarding “political manipulation” is with a with the American attention span, not the candidates. Political demagoguery has been around since cavemen campaigned for fire-bearer. Of course candidates are going to rely on whatever tactics get them into office. The fact that Americans no longer demand serious debate has more to do with the media (meaning the constraints of TV and the internet) more than anything else. These are visual, rapid-fire media that lack the capacity to mass-inform on any serious level. The supposedly democratic nature of the Internet is increasingly a sham as its echo-chamber qualities prove dangerously capable of reiterating misinformation and thoughtless rhetoric.
i think this is an attempt to manipulate people into supporting hilary
Great read, So true the bush/clinton New World Order must be stopped… google ” 911 was inside job , loose change, End game, ”
The Freemason and scull and bone hold the elections. There Two faces of the same coin…
The problem with your theory about the 2000 and 2004 elections was that these tactics didn’t work.
What did were the illegal tactics you spoke of — caging, ballot tampering, harrassment, etc. Let’s not forget that Gore won the popular vote, so manipulating public opinion away from Democrats just didn’t happen.
fool on December 28th, 2007 at 12:46 am:
can we just give up already?
the joke is on us, even I support ms.Hillary on the lesser of evils campaign, and hope her presidency will help reduce the rampant sexism.
—————————————-
What rampant sexism would that be? Do you mean like how her husband cheats on her constantly, and raped a woman, while Hilary did the damage control for him?
She certainly won’t do anything about racism, other than fuel the hatespeech of Sharpton and Jackson, who are both a complete 180 from MLK jr, and in Jackson’s case, are the embodiment of every negative black stereotype.
Hilary would usher in Stalinism to the US. I’m sure she’ll be as effective a President as Pelosi is a speaker.
How can she even be president? They swear to uphold the Constitution, but that woman is for free speech regulating laws, she’s for gun control, for a centralized federal government with less power to the states, against private property. People can bash Bush all they want for what he’s done, but they’ll be begging for a Bush 43 presidency after Hilary has turned us into 1930s Russia with an economy that would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.
“Great read, So true the bush/clinton New World Order must be stopped… google ” 911 was inside job , loose change, End game, ””
Have fun googling ‘Loose Change’ and trying to believe that crock after seeing all the debunking that google brings up.
How about googling the Amero, North American Union, and NAFTA superhighway?
Instead of wasting time on idiotic, debunked ‘truther’ garbage, looking up the major threat facing us, which has hard evidence from the government itself. the NAU is a greater threat than some theory that the government pulled off an inside job in a time where the CIA and other Federal agents are constantly leaking info to their press buddies.
And once you look up the NAU and see what’s in store, I suggest you prepare yourself, because most media-backed candidates on both sides of the election support it.
lol the debunkers have been debunked google Scholars For 9/11 Truth, yeah the NAU is comming but do you know why and how retard…
This in itself is a manipulative article to get people to support Hillary.
John: I’d refer you to my “15 fun facts about the 2008 elections” article to show you that I am not interested in pushing Hillary Clinton on the public. In fact, I had someone quite livid about the fact that I was trying to spread lies to hurt Hillary Clinton. I just call it like I see it and if that bothers you, well.. I don’t apologize for it!
This is ridiculous… you’re insinuating that a Barack Obama victory = win for Republicans? Really? Recent polls show independents heavily favor Obama in the General Election. I’m with the people who think this article is manipulative itself. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton simply because I believe she is dishonest and conniving.
I believe the way you run your candidacy is indicative of the way you will run the Oval office. I’m sure everyone is well aware of the smear campaign she has run against Obama:
“It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?”‘ said Shaheen, Clinton’s co-chair in NH.
“There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome,” Shaheen said.
He later had to step down for those comments.
Roland: not at all. This is about 2 things: 1) manipulating the public at large to achieve a result 2) theorizing about Karl Rove’s motivation for making certain predictions.
This is not a pro-Hillary Clinton piece, even though it’s been perceived that way. Republicans DO have something to gain from Hillary Clinton — besides the fact that she is an easy candidate to smear. Hillary Clinton is the most conservative of the Democrats, she also might be the biggest threat to Republicans because of it.
Barack Obama and John Edwards won’t have trouble knocking off the GOP if it pushes a pro-War candidate. However, if a terrorist incident occurs and the propaganda starts flying, guess which Democratic candidate will have an edge on the War issue?
[...] read more | digg story [...]