It has been a disconcerting experience to watch the CNN after the first and the second debate. The CNN has been crudely too much of a partisan in acting like Clinton’s election agent. It is the biggest mistake of TV journalists to attach greater value to their judgment and opinion than the voters. When the TV journalists take to politicking, they end up using more negative adjectives for their object of dislike or hatred than the contesting candidate himself/herself.
Instead of promoting Hillary Clinton’s case for Presidency this election, the CNN has ruined her case awfully. I wonder if Hillary Clinton needs the crutches of a TV channel like the CNN because she is taller than the CNN, carries more weight than the opinions of CNN anchors and like-minded participants and presents a better account of herself and her ideas?
By carrying an overt vilification campaign against Donald Trump, the CNN has ended up turning larger public opinion in his favor compared to the beginning of the election campaign.
Here is an example of how the journalists on TV end up doing more harm than good. Too much is being made of the 2005 video of Trump accusing him of lack of “respect” for women repeatedly ad nauseam.
The video has damaged Trump’s campaign seriously.
He has been made to apologize to his family and the American people and women. For CNN it is “no-apology apology”. Wonderful play of words!
Is the CNN faking respect for women? It is whipping a man for indulging in lewd talk. First of all, is it very uncommon in America for the rich and influential to indulge in lewd “locker room talk”? When journalists interview these powerful people in lurid details, are they not savoring these juicy details and expressions themselves?
It would have really been outrageous had Trump said he would do these things inside the Oval Room! What shows respect for women: talking loose about them or misusing the power of the President of America to enter the innocent and helpless young women in the Oval Room?
Punishment under the law for the offense or the crime depends on the degree of gravity rather than the status of the man. By raking up an unpleasant issue, the CNN has put Hillary Clinton to great embarrassment for the indiscretions of her husband who was the occupant of the White House and she was the First Lady.
It is not at issue whether Bill Clinton indulged in “inappropriate” behavior simply or was a habitual offender. Secrets from the White House are closely guarded and even CNN cooperates in such matters.
How is Hillary Clinton responsible for the indiscretions of her husband?
Not at all, excepting that she failed to show the same “respect” for women and stand by them in distress as she is demanding of Donald Trump now.
If Trump proceeds to pursue matters vigorously, Hillary Clinton’s genuinely serious failures in respect of “respect for women” may get exposed.
But does it serve the purpose? In my view, this election needs to be focused on issues of extremely serious nature, which are going to set trends in American and on a wider scale, global political scenario, whether the Americans like it or not.
The Democratic campaign managers betray a kind of hatred for the wealthy people (Trump is their face) in the true socialist temperament and rhetoric. It is sickening to put up with these pseudo socialists.
They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns, extorting money from the ordinary people whom they promise an Eldorado in return. They promote poverty, disease, illiteracy and crime among the poorer sections of the society who are unable to earn enough to make ends meet or send children to college, rendering them vulnerable to the dark alleys of crime.
As an ideology, socialism has miserably failed.
Instead of weaving enticing illusions for the poor, the political parties like the Democrats should lead them in an altogether a new way by first providing them means of livelihood and not food coupons or doles.
The Americans have made the life of the poor in the world more difficult by promoting a high cost economy, based on waste, fashions and huge profit margins.
These measures keep raising the bar for the poor every now and then, trapping them forever in the vicious circle of poverty and lack of opportunities to break free of it. For the suffering masses such a life is more devastating than any NCD (non communicable disease) like heart attack, hypertension, cancer, which kill millions worldwide. Is there any hope for a change in this regard?
The debate has digressed into Russia bashing in the Cold War style. So Hillary calls Putin a dictator and CNN does not spare him, spooking the Devil itself! But the USSR is history now and there is no need to revert to the old phraseology.
Raring for a war with Russia and Assad in Syria is not a wise course to take. What will America do there? How long will it remain there? What will it achieve after defeating them other than strengthening the likes of Baghdadi and the ISIS?
Can America forget the lessons learnt in Iraq so soon? Will it be possible for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to translate their programs into action without the support of the more experienced levels of decision making in such matters in the government and the parliament?
Election speak is half hollow and the remaining half jingoism.
There are times when leaders emerge on the scene with a clear agenda in public interest and a comprehensive view of the ground realities surrounding them. Simply grandstanding is of no use. America seems to be a loser on this measure.
It is hoped that the third debate will salvage the issues from the odorous pit of election politics and state in no uncertain terms the direction the country will take from next year.