So let’s take a look at where this “Clinton is inauthentic” talking point comes from. Because with the exception of one thing, we’re going to be listening to so-called progressives lazily repeating bullshit talking points that most of us paying attention have heard ever since the whole “not baking cookies thing” from wingnuts for a few months. So if so-called progressives can’t come up with their own arguments against Clinton, let’s at least be clear where they are stealing their work from. For this cycle, it seems to have started as early as 2 years ago:
August 2014 James Varney is not at the top tier of wingnuttery — he is a fairly respected muckracking reporter in Lousiana, but does have an affinity for wingnut political positions. I mean, he’s got the sneering on climate change down pat, right? This stalwart manages to pack in all of the right words AND link them to something which probably is making some SEO person somewhere very happy.
April 2015 — Charles Krauthammer spins up his take on Clinton’s authenticity that launches off of a Marie Antoinette metaphor — you know, for the Dem nomination coronation? He spills alot of ink trying to convince you that he knows something about how inauthentic HRC is, but he does know:
But she has her strengths: discipline, determination, high intelligence, great energy.
I think we are meant to know that these attributes are authentic, but somehow her motivation and overal raison d’etre are phony. Or something. This from someone who was a BushCo Ride or Die — the judgement of *this* guy was that BushCo was as authentic as it gets. Back in the day, progressives used this kind of bad judgement as a signal of the fundamental untrustworthiness of the messenger.
April 2015 — Powerline thinks Hillary is inauthentic! This time because she spoke of both of her grandparents as being immigrants when one was. As far as I can tell she hasn’t repeated this, so this looks like she misspoke. Like 57 states. Still, take note of the effort to showcase this presumed inauthenticity by declaring that this is worse than Elizabeth Warren’s justification of her claim to be of Native American descent. Got that? You reinforce the authenticity of your talking point by referencing a previous talking point. *THIS* is how it is done, guys. Of course, Powerline has plenty of practice in defending the worst of the GOP and running point in the effort to delegitimize President Barack Obama for almost 8 years. Not exactly a source I’d place much credibility in, but then, I’m not susceptible to Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
September 2015 — The deranged Jennifer Rubin (who still defends BushCo) wrote this column about HRC being inauthentic — squinting at an interview HRC did on Face the Nation answering some questions about voters looking for outsiders this cycle. This bit of writing comes complete with a cheap shot at pantsuits and more bullshit about the email server. Bonus points for cruising through the comments, looks like a more practiced version of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome in some of DL’s threads. Seriously guys, spin through and see how it is really done.
There’s more, of course. And not a new observation. What is new is that so-called progressives — who wouldn’t normally give this bullshit the time of day — have suddenly found the very old GOP talking points on HRC very credible. I mean, who doesn’t love Jon Stewart, but I don’t know how anyone judges that someone you see on TV (Stewart) is more “authentic” than someone else you see on TV (Hillary). Everyone is performing here — for different stakes, but still performing. And invoking “inauthentic” against HRC is a way of invoking the litany of old VRWC complaints against her: cold, calculating, measured, corrupt, dishonest, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Brendan Nyhan gets to the problem with the “authenticity” narrative for candidates:
Once these narratives develop, candidates like Mrs. Clinton can get stuck in what I’ve called the authenticity doom loop — the same fate that plagued Mr. Gore and Mr. Romney. In this phase, candidates are criticized for not being sufficiently authentic and urged to reveal their true selves. But any efforts to demonstrate authenticity prompt the news media to point out that the candidate is acting strategically and is therefore actually still inauthentic. This coverage in turn motivates further efforts to reveal the “real” person, and the pattern then repeats.
And this is right:
In the end, candidates like Mrs. Clinton who are labeled inauthentic are unlikely to change those perceptions, while the sincerity of other politicians typically goes unchallenged. Maybe we should stop pretending we can tell the difference.
Which won’t make one bit of difference to the so-called Progressives who have decided that the VRWC narrative on HRC is one they can suddenly get behind. And Charles Krauthammer thanks you.