Ms Clinton's "speed of light" problem and the 10 year lag factor.........

[ThatBozGuy]

10 years ago Tuzla and other whoppers wouldn't have spread far enough or fast to catch up to her falsehoods.

That is why in general she is failing on so many fronts, Triangulation only works in isolation, say one thing to this group,
Triangulate and then say what this group wants to hear even if it contradicts what you said to group one.

Ms Clintons "problem" is all the groups can now and do talk to each other, and crowd sourcing can now debunk a false claim or conflagration with out it being presented by an alternate campaign.

The people have the power to listen and decide for themselves.

When you count on people not being educated and they educate each other, sometimes at the speed of light, you can never go faster than your own lies carry you.

[MH1]

I'm glad you made this an op.

It's a good insight. It also shows that the Clintons weren't paying attention in 2004, and neither were their very highly paid consultants. (Or they aren't listening to their consultants on that score.)

[ThatBozGuy]

2. Yeah I felt it strong enough to be discussed, rather than just a limited response buried away......

The whole campaign is stuck in the 90s, that is a lifetime behind in politics. One only has to look at the 18 state flyover Clinton strategy to see where they are failing to adjust to todays reality.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. The lesson they took away is that a candidate can be Deaned or swiftboated.

Not this time.

[MH1]

5. Yes, but the other side, is that a statement will be parsed unmercifully,

and if there is any slip the opposition can pounce on, they will.

I work in the info tech world but lately I have been unsure whether this new speed of information is wholly a good thing. Because it seems where there is ill intent, the velocity is super-charged much more than if it is only backed by honesty and good intent.

[ThatBozGuy]

6. But as wth most chaos it has a way of finding order and straightening itself out.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. It's the elongated time frame. 2 years!

If the election season were more compacted, I think we would see a more issue-oriented election.

What does one say on day 522 that wasn't said by day 90? So, parse it is.

[ThatBozGuy]

9. I do think your right, I mean Mr Obama started taking a hit for just such a situation.......

He lost a bit of his momentum in taking Ohio because they had already heard his speeches in other states.

Ohio wanted to hear something new just for them, but he was doing some of the same speech lines he had been for several months and that is why some of Ohio voters did'nt catch fire under them to get out the vote.

He already had some of them, he was already their candidate in some cases, but he just couldn't fire them up enough to go out and actually cast that vote because it was "the same old speech" he learned that lesson and has now started rolling some fresh stumps out.

The length of time is definitely impacting.

[FARAFIELD]

1. What was up with the

Ducking sniper bullets thing? She didnt!! lame

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Absolutely - They Lied Like Crazy In 1992, But They Were Much Harder To Catch

I was a manager at the Paul Tsongas campaign in 1992. It was clear to us that Clinton was, as Sen. Bob Kerrey said "an unusually good liar", but without the Internet it was a tough sell.

The Internet is a fantastic tool for policing elections.

[jgraz]

8. Yep, remember the Jerry Brown Drug Party "scandal"

They started that in Wisconsin to distract from Bill playing golf at a whites-only country club.

[unblock]

10. "triangulate" and "two-faced" are not the same thing

"triangulate" is what bill clinton did when he tried to distinguish himself from the democratic congress. he didn't then lie to the democratic congress about his positions. he just found a third position that was neither fully aligned with the democratic congress nor fully aligned with the republicans. at least that was the idea. triangulation does not depend on slow news travel speeds or isolation or anything like that.

what you're describing about hillary is called being "two-faced" or "pandering" -- twisting your position or outright lying to cater to the interests of whomever you're speaking to at the moment.


note: i'm taking a view on whether hillary does or doesn't do this -- any more than ALL politicians do this to some extent -- i'm just picking a nit about the terminology.