Hillary Clinton, despite her most recent disastrous tenure as Secretary of State, is still considering a 2016 Democratic nomination to run as a presidential candidate. Because of the 20-years of public scrutiny, “a group of marketing experts is weighing in on how they would en-vision” Hillary for a new campaign. Is there enough “sugar and spice” to cover the Hildabeast’s baggage in order to cloud the memory of the voter base of her record as New York Senator and her role in the murder of four Americans at Benghazi? Is there enough TV air time, radio waves and newspaper ink to cover her support for population control and other “questionable” activities?
According to Newsmax.com via the Washington Post:
“Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to re-fresh the well-established Hillary brand for tomorrow’s marketplace,” the Post wrote of their efforts, geared at presenting future voters “with a winning picture of the likely candidate … from her economic opportunity agenda to the design of the ‘H’ in her future campaign logo.”
The feelings of sudden deja vu hit hard as this is reminiscent of the development of the Obama “logo” for his 2008 campaign.
But, marketers for Hillary have a much more difficult challenge; they have to attempt to “erase” much of the bad publicity that Hillary has accumulated under her belt since being in the political limelight. The Post contends that marketers will have to find that “perfect blend” to project authenticity since her 2008 campaign was criticized as “overly programmed.” A former Obama campaign adviser even compared the Hildabeast to “Budweiser” instead of being a “microbrew.” In fact, this individual states, “She’s one of the biggest, most powerful brands ever in the country….”
If one didn’t know better, it sounds like these “marketers” will be working on coffee and beer campaigns instead of an individual seeking political office.
Many of the intelligent individuals in America could save these “marketing experts” some time and effort. Regardless of what “label” you try to put on the “brand,” if the product is bad or produces adverse effects, it doesn’t change the product. It’s like putting a dress and lipstick on a pig and calling it a “girl.” It’s still a pig no matter how you dress it.
While Budweiser is touted as the “king of beers,” it gives me a headache so I will not touch the stuff ever again. The label and the marketing campaign can change; however, the product will still produce that headache, meaning I’m not drinking it nor am I buying it. In this case, the “king of beers” is the “pauper of brew.”
Dark Roast coffee has a bitter taste to me, regardless of brand. I don’t buy dark roast coffee, don’t drink dark roast coffee, don’t purchase a mixture coffee with dark roast beans, and no marketing campaign will change that. It equates to the sour of green persimmon.
Marketers can dress the Hildabeast anyway they want. They can design ten logos, skew the image to whatever “vision” they imagine, and try to make her appear authentic; however, what Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton is will not be changing.
The Hill indicates that Hillary Clinton, along with Jeb Bush, is fighting the “battle of the baggage.” While Jeb Bush is dealing with the legacy of his father and brother, Clinton is dealing with baggage related to her directly: “new scrutiny of Clinton Foundation donors – especially foreign governments and wealthy non-U.S. citizens –,” memories of Whitewater, “the selling of the White House Lincoln Bedroom to political patrons,” and her actions while Secretary of State over Benghazi. What about Hillary’s “Black Panther” days, her admiration for Saul Alinksy, and her support for Muslim terrorist organizations? She’s like Obama 3.0.
It’s kind of hard for marketers to erase the role Hillary played in the deaths of four Americans while she was Secretary of State. And, let’s not forget her role in perpetuating the lie of the attack as a result of a YouTube video to cite more recent examples of the Clinton legacy. But, the memory span of the low-information voter may not be that hard to counter as “an amalgam of 223 polls” split Clinton as 46.8% viewing her as favorable while 45.6% view her as unfavorable.
The greatest hoax perpetrated against the American public was the man currently occupying the Oval Office. Some bought his “silver tongued” rhetoric putting in place their idea of “hope, change and transformation” instead of realizing their ideas were not Obama’s. His background and ideology were overlooked because of a slick, twisted “marketing” campaign that preyed on the impressionable. It worked not once, but twice – overlooking possible voter fraud and election tampering.
Tony Fratto, deputy press secretary under President George W. Bush, said both Jeb and Hillary are “skilled at getting people to past” their pasts. One doesn’t have to guess to know how they do that.
Former US ambassador Terry Shumaker made the statement to the effect that it was “unrealistic” to expect “anyone who can entertain realistic hopes of entering the White House to have lived a blank, unblemished life.” Anyone with any sense knows that it’s difficult for any individual to live a “blank, unblemished life.” However, it is not unreasonable to expect candidates for the highest office in this country to be free from questionable criminal and illegal activities, such as being complicit in cover-ups of wrong-doing and supporting subversive activities.
The impressionable Americans will not be able to blame “a hidden past” for their support of Hillary Clinton as her numerous follies are out in the open and her potential criminal past exposed. What it does say about impressionable Americans is they look not for the substance, but the package the “marketers” present. Evidently, this is what “buys” the votes of some.
While the Hildabeast has been the main focus, Jebster is not any better; however, the Jebster does have some competition – if you can call some of the GOP contenders anything to squawk about. Americans need to remember the past and present of Hillary, Jeb and any other candidate vying for election to the highest office of the land and not be influenced by slick marketing campaigns designed to change merely a “dressing” while the “substance” remains unchanged.