Diminishing Returns

In order to blow obscuring smoke around her many gaffs, her many scandals and her many health issues; Hellary Clinton, with the reliable help of her media pals, has tried smearing Trump at least three major times during and after the Democrat convention ... and there is a calculated pattern to these stunts ... a sympathetic figure has been wronged by Trump and therefore a certain voting block should abandon this evil evil man at the polls:

First it was the poor "gold star mother" that Trump dissed ... represented by the wife of Khizr Khan ... see: Khan Artist.

Next it was that poor architect (and other contractors) that Trump has stiffed ... see: Bag Job.

And the latest ploy was a former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado, a poor victim of Trump's fat shaming ... see: Miss Piggy.

The thing that I find curious about these Clinton brickbats is that their effects are diminishing both in terms of initial impact and also in duration. They are obviously carefully planned and staged events ... with follow-up stories and events pre-programmed ... and talking points distributed. However, since the hits that Trump takes in the polls from these stunts are getting smaller and less persistent, they are becoming less effective ... that is ... Clinton's campaign hench-persons are clearly reaping diminishing returns.

And why are the returns on these attacks diminishing? Perhaps, just perhaps it is because of Trump's rapid responses ... his 3 AM tweets, his often candid admissions of partial responsibility ... but with clarifying explanations. If this is the reason Trump is so resilient through these political smears, then what should the Clinton campaign do? Why attack Trump for his 3 AM tweets of course ... like they have taken to doing recently. This, to me, is a good indication that he should continue doing what he has been doing ... and ignore even those on his own side who are echoing these Clinton media gripes.

The Clinton juggernaut might even go too far with these obvious smears and move into the territory of negative returns. Wouldn't that be special?

Miss Piggy

There is always more to the story than first appears. Hellary Clinton's presidential debate revelation of Donald Trump's comments about a 1996 Miss Universe contest winner which showed him to be sexist and anti-Latina have ignored key details about his displeasure with this woman, Miss Venezuela. The American liberal media are happy to go with Hellary's simplistic version of things ... Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeper ... but not so in the British media. If you have an open mind and want to understand why Donald Trump was rash and said what he did ... and why this woman is not quite the victim she was portrayed to be, then read the sordid details in The U.K. Daily Mail.

Otherwise, maintain your double standard and deny or ignore Jaunita Broaddrick's tale of much worse abuse by the Clinton crime family ... again a case of Trump's venial sin versus the Clintons' mortal sin. I'm not happy with venial sinners, but I can't vote for mortal sinners.

Afterward: When I wrote this I assumed that Hellary had evidence backing up this claim. (She would never lie.) Now this is not so clear ... see: Bizpacreview Story.

After Afterward: The Clinton team did not do a very good job of vetting this porcine  performer ... see: The Sun Sinful Revelations.