If you have a pulse and follow the news at all, you have probably heard the story that Bill and Hillary had a negative story set to run by GQ magazine pulled from the publication. If you have not heard this story, that means that you are probably less of a media hound, and thus, much more stable than I am.
On a side note, you now know of the story so you are just as unstable and maladjusted as I am. Take that!
Well, this story has the left and the right lining up just as you would expect. Fox is trying to figure out if there was some law broken, or at least some journalistic coercion going on. While those on the left are rallying behind the democratic royal couple, saying this is just good politics.
Well, I am no fan of Hillary. Not one bit. As a matter of fact, she scares the living crap out of me. Now Bill, he is a different story. I kind of like him. Not as a politician, or as a president, just as a guy. I do not endorse or believe in either as a politician.
So, with that out of the way, let me say this. The right, the republicans, the conservatives, the anybody that is trying to make something out of this, are completely wrong. Just so we are clear, those trying to act as if the Clinton’s did something wrong are wrong.
The Clinton’s just did what most people do on a daily basis. That is, using leverage to get desired results. Simple enough.
GQ magazine was not pressured, or forced by any branch of the government, into killing the negative Clinton story. There were no illegal repercussions aimed at the magazine by anyone with the power to do harm. Their was no journalistic coercion.
What there was, however, was a social contract of sorts. Let me explain.
I am a podcaster, a blogger, and an internet marketer. Every day of my life I make several unwritten social contracts with other people that live in the social networking world of web 2.0. These contracts basically say that I will partner with these people for mutual gain, as long as there is no negativity brought into the transactions.
For instance, I meet person x through a social network of some type. Person x is a podcaster or marketer, or whatever. The important thing is that we can help each other out. Maybe I run a promo in my podcast for person x, and then person x does something else for me. Well, if person x were to ever badmouth me, or spread negative information about me, I would feel justified in denying access to myself from that moment on. The unwritten social contract was breached.
This is exactly what has happened between GQ magazine and the Bill and Hillary show. GQ has a negative story on Hillary, and possibly Bill. GQ also has Bill lined up to be on the cover of their “Man of the Year” issue. Hillary and Bill let GQ know, in no uncertain terms, that if they run the article, they lose Bill. In other words, if they run the article, the social contract is broken.
Some people call this coercion. It is leverage. GQ was not forced into killing the article. Instead they weighed the positives and negatives of running the piece and realized they needed to play nice with the Clinton juggernaut.
It was a good choice also. People wanting a smear piece on Hillary are disappointed, but GQ has remained a friend, or at least off of the shit-list, of what is possibly the most powerful couple in our country. Good call.
The Clinton’s for their part get the double, no, make that triple whammy of not having to defend against a negative article, having Bill get prime exposure leading up to the elections, and sending a message to their opponents that they are not a couple in which you want to tangle.
They made the offer, GQ took them up on it, that is just how things are done.
I still hope she never becomes our president, but I have to call things like I see them. In this case, they did nothing illegal, or even unethical. They just made a deal.
Still, I would not want to be on their bad side. Just ask Vinc…Oh never mind.