Don’t get me wrong, I really like Slate’s Political Gabfest. I’ve listened to their weekly podcast for over a decade now. Jayme and I even went to their live show here in Atlanta at Georgia Tech’s Ferst Center a month or two ago.
That’s why it drives me crazy when I hear the type of discussion I heard on this week’s episode.
(For those who have not listened to the gabfest before, they always break each episode into three segments, followed by Cocktail Chatter. That means they discuss three main topics for roughly 10-12 minutes each.)
The first segment was all about Donald Trump’s (relentlessly) ridiculous week. While trying to get his campaign “back on message”, he had a relatively normal Monday talking about a (somewhat coherent, although see the “charts” video for evidence of being not-so-coherent) economic policy. Then, his week fell apart. He suggested that the “second amendment people” might have a way to stop Hillary Clinton, basically saying they might consider assassinating her. He also called President Obama the founder of ISIS. Yes, you heard that right, the founder of ISIS (what the actual fuck?!?). And even when offered a way to back off of these comments later in the week, he simply doubled down on them.
So, commentary, commentary, commentary…
Then, the second topic was about how politicians can/should apologize in the age of constant media. And this was all about Hillary Clinton’s remarks to Chris Wallace regarding her interview with the FBI Director concerning the email server thing.
Again, commentary, commentary, commentary…
Here’s what angers me. They have set these two topics up to be a back-to-back questioning of the candidate’s bona fides. First, let’s present this candidate’s foibles. Then, we’ll point out the other’s.
AS IF THEY’RE THE SAME THING?!!?!
One is by an assclown who is suggesting that people might think about MURDERING A SITTING PRESIDENT and the other’s is over the candidate’s word choice about a fricking email server. (Believe me, if I hear her say anything to the effect of “it depends on your definition of ‘is'”, I’m going to hurl.)
How are these two even remotely the comparable? Why should anyone make that argument? Did they realize they were doing this in setting up the segments this way?
I see this so much, especially when it comes to Trump. Every stupid fucking thing he does (and there are so very many examples to choose from) is followed by some mention of a Hillary flaw. Most of the time, it’s the damn email server.
Just so frustrating…