At right: the Trump campaign. Sorry, Trumpkins.
PredictWise has Hillary Clinton with an 86% shot at being President, which means Donald Trump is still technically alive at 14%, because math. As I type, he's doing better than the Boston Red Sox, who are judged to have a mere 5% probability of winning the World Series.
And in the Phony Poll, Jill Stein comes crashing back to earth, as the Google Gods realize the true phonies this year are…
|Query String||Hit Count||Change Since
|"Donald Trump" phony||1,290,000||-30,000|
|"Hillary Clinton" phony||889,000||-171,000|
|"Jill Stein" phony||475,000||-3,445,000|
|"Gary Johnson" phony||129,000||-13,000|
For our purposes, coverage of Trump's 2005 "extremely
demonstrated the interesting
rules various news outlets have for obscuring bad words.
For example, the WaPo goes PG-13 in this paragraph:
“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”
… but elsewhere in the article, it's "s---", "f---", and "p---y".
The bazongas in question belong to Ms. Nancy O'Dell, host of Entertainment Tonight, a show I'm pretty sure I haven't watched in decades. Her official statement makes no mention of the phoniness allegation (although she's apparently denied it in the past, and Googling does not reveal anything on this important issue other than rumor and tawdry speculation):
"Politics aside, I’m saddened that these comments still exist in our society at all. When I heard the comments yesterday, it was disappointing to hear such objectification of women. The conversation needs to change because no female, no person, should be the subject of such crass comments, whether or not cameras are rolling. Everyone deserves respect no matter the setting or gender. As a woman who has worked very hard to establish her career, and as a mom, I feel I must speak out with the hope that as a society we will always strive to be better."
It's probably ungentlemanly to observe that the former beauty queen has "established her career" on her extraordinary good looks, so her whole "objectification" complaint rings a little hollow.
When will we know that "society" has successfully striven "to be better" on this score? When Rachel Dratch becomes an Entertainment Tonight co-host.
Speaking of beauty queens: Steve Harvey, well known for
his gig as host of a recent Miss Universe pageant, interviewed Hillary
back in February, during the heat of the primary campaign. You wouldn't
expect him to ask hardball questions.
But, as recently revealed in a leaked memo, Hillary was guaranteed
an even more comfy ride:
Talk show host Steve Harvey provided Hillary Clinton’s campaign with the exact questions he would ask of Clinton during a February interview, according to an internal campaign memo sent a week before the interview and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
An impressively phony moment:“During this segment Steve will take a trip down memory lane with YOU to talk about the different moments of YOUR life displayed in the photographs below,” the memo explained photos of Clinton that Harvey pulled up on screen as she discussed her childhood, education, relationship with her husband, and election to the U.S. Senate.
Clinton feigned surprise throughout the interview. “Oh boy. Oh my goodness,” she exclaimed as Harvey displayed a photo of her at 12 years old.
That's show biz. Also, consistently rendering YOU and YOUR in uppercase is apparently a thing.
Was Hillary caught using a child actor at a Pennsylvania town hall
campaign event? Find out the shocking answer at Zero Hedge:
Caught Using Child Actor At Pennsylvania Town Hall".
At a Hillary Clinton town hall yesterday in Haverford, Pennsylvania, a 15 year old girl was supposedly "chosen at random" to ask a question of the former Secretary of State. But, the well-scripted performance raised some suspicion with a YouTuber named Spanglevision who decided to dig a little deeper. And, wouldn't you know it, the "random" participant was none other than child actor, Brennan Leach, whose father just happens to be Pennsylvania democratic State Senator Daylin Leach. Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, Daylin supports Hillary for president...shocking.
Yeah, I think that's credible. Could do without all the bold and underlines.
Note that Snopes attempts to debunk this, but the best they can do is "unproven". I also found their wording of the "claim" to be a little dishonest:
Claim: Hillary Clinton "hired" a child actor to be "planted" in the audience during a Town Hall campaign event.
I'm bothered by Snopes putting "hired" in quotes, as if someone was making the specific charge of money changing hands for little Brennan's performance. I may be missing something, but I don't see that word at Zero Hedge. Is Snopes attempting to rebut an allegation that nobody's actually made?
Jacob Sullum watched last evening's debate, and solves the mystery:
Shows How She Manages to Be Less Trusted Than Trump". Casting her e-mail
negligence as a
"mistake" is well-known. The new
inconvenience that she needed to explain away last night: her two-faced
speech confession, kept secret until Wikileaked, was "So you need both a
public and a private position."
Her focus-grouped response: hey, it's exactly the same thing Lincoln
did in that Spielberg movie to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed!
Sullum rebuts:Assuming the Wikileaks excerpts are accurate (and Clinton is not claiming they're not), that is a serious distortion of what Clinton actually said in her speech. She was not talking about tailoring your arguments to your audience; she was talking about bribing legislators with promises of lucrative jobs, which she argued was justified by the importance of getting Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. More generally, she said such tactics, although "unsavory," are both necessary and appropriate, although it is best to conceal them from the public, since otherwise people might "get a little nervous."
It is understandable that Clinton would prefer not to admit endorsing this Machiavellian view, especially given the broader implications of saying one thing publicly and another privately. But by pretending she did not say what she said, she only compounds the impression that she is slippery, two-faced, and untrustworthy.
Had I been Jacob's editor, I might have suggested replacing "only compounds the impression" with "demonstrates yet again".