When comparing the opinions
Of the candidates (and minions)
One can see that the two parties disagree.
In a way, though, both are trying
To expose the other’s lying—
It’s the difference that’s instructive, we can see.
One side cites a zillion sources
So they carry weight like horses
Using evidence, addressing any doubts
They can prove prevarication
Past the point of refutation…
And the other side? It mostly points and shouts.
Yeah, more false equivalence. Sorta. We’ve seen this sort of thing before, in very different circumstances. One side has all the evidence, the other side has pulpit-pounding, and it’s treated like two equal opponents.
It’s easy to say “X is unfit!” (or “is a liar” or “consumes the blood of infants” or whatever); it is less easy to back up your claim with strong sources. While it is true that both sides have been lobbing accusations at one another, it is not true that those accusations have the same weight of evidence behind them.
This is not an angle I have seen in the media; I wonder if perhaps I am in the minority on whether it is needed–I want to see Clinton’s people making the case that, while both sides are making accusations, only one side is bringing evidence-lots of evidence-to the table.
The other points and shouts. And has been unreasonably successful in doing so.