@Olivier5,
Quote:Re: Builder (Post 6560662)
Oh I know that you guys can't possibly let her go. She owns you. Your attachement to Hillary is so strong that even after she dies, you'll keep talking about her, on and on for years, with tears in your eyes...
I think it's important to understand what's going on here.
Both marketers and political propagandists have long recognized that your message can be much more effective if it is "personalized". A page of stats or abstract theorizing do not carry the same emotional clout as, for example, a photograph. Remember the Pentagon's production of "most wanted Iraqis" playing cards. Or the bazillion instances we've all seen of a politician bringing "victimized" citizen to sit with them at a political event. Etc.
Another way we can observe the use of this technique is in how a key representative of one party will be made the focus of resentments and anger (eg Pelosi). This is what is going on with the Hillary focus.
But what's most interesting in this is Hillary's irrelevance in the current political situation in the US. Yet her name/likeness still gain daily focus of right wing media (and Trump but that's kind of the same thing). It isn't rational, in the normal sense of that word, but it is in terms of strategy based on how humans behave. In this propagandist messaging, Hillary is made to stand as representative of the left even while being effectively gone from the scene. It would be similar to a situation where, say, MSNBC was to blanket its coverage with daily or hourly attacks on Reagan.
But why the choice of Hillary? And why are they still at it?
1) this pattern was established when Bill was running and was maintained through his presidency (being most acute during the Hillarycare project). Because the pattern has existed in the right wing media for decades, it's very easy to re-stimulate the minds of the right wing audience concerning her (and Bill).
2) As soon as it became highly likely that she'd be the Dem candidate last cycle, all the machinery of right wing media turned to concentrate its fire on her.
3) There is no other figure on the left who (because of all the above) is so easily labeled and demeaned within the right wing mental universe. They tried with Obama (and are still trying) but he doesn't fit the propaganda needs nearly so well.
4) GOP strategists understood clearly that Hillary would be very difficult to beat in the election. One of the vectors of the propaganda attack on her was to encourage voices from her left (or apparently from the left) to rail against her. The involvement of right wing agitators in the Sanders movement had this function - magnify the negative narratives and, hopefully, keep Dem voters from supporting her/voting. If you hadn't figured it out already, this is Lash's game here.
5) Gender. The GOP understands that it is in serious danger of being swamped electorally if more women get politically active. So right wing media will tend to focus a lot of demeaning and sexist narrative towards rising female Dem figures. Thus "Pocahantus". And they will be going for Gillibrand in the same manner (Lash already is doing this).
