Brown, Brown, Brown ... Really, Hillary?

You may not know this, but the Democrats had a debate this past weekend among their presidential contenders.  Saturday night, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley mounted the stage in New Hampshire in relative obscurity.  I haven't seen the ratings, but even the network didn't advertise it, so you know that the DNC was holding the debate reluctantly and doing everything it could to avoid anyone actually, you know, seeing it.

I actually watched it, at least the first two-thirds before the mutual self-congratulations and lack of any real contention among the participants sent me to the football game ... any football game.  But I get points for trying.  That's more than I can say for 99% of the USA.

I do want to mention that I am absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are not stupid people.  Deluded, yes; corrupt, possibly (OK, in Hillary's case, certainly); but not stupid.  So I was pretty nonplussed to hear Sanders describe his plan to have all college educations be, in his words, "free" (in the words of the rest of the USA and reality, "paid for by the taxpayer and borrowing from China").  I believe I explained the stupidity of the idea before here; ahhh, look at it. It's a fun and quick read.

"Free" -- he really said that, and Hillary was right there with him, almost.  She was certainly right there in terms of the method of paying for it -- Sanders and Mrs. Clinton were both assuming that all manner of things could be paid for by "taxing hedge-fund managers" so they would "pay their fair share", whatever that is.

I took a moment and determined that the superfluous Department of Education believes there are slightly over 20 million college students this year.  At $12,600 or so per student in costs (same source), that comes to about $250 billion to pay for college for just the students we have; if free college brings in -- what -- 50% more students? -- it becomes that much more.

We have zero dollars now to pay for it, since we're already borrowing from China to pay our Federal bills.  So we make the leap of faith that we're fine with that borrowing and we're going to pay for this by raising taxes on hedge-fund managers.  Um, how many hedge-fund managers are there?  Does anyone actually know one?  I don't, and I know a lot of people.

So Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are telling us that they truly believe that they can raise $250 billion per year that way, and that they believe the difference between what hedge-fund managers are paying already, and what they "should be paying" is $250 billion.  You could confiscate 100% of their income and then go seize all their property and bank accounts, and if you got a billion or two out of it, you'd be doing well.

And they think we're going to vote for them.

But I digress.  What struck me fairly early on, and struck my best girl (she made about 45 minutes of the debate and then fell asleep) immediately, was this -- Hillary Clinton was wearing brown clothing.
OK, it wasn't the first thing I noticed, but once it was pointed out, it really struck me.  Who wears brown?  I mean, not even making a foul joke relating to her, ah, late return to the stage after one commercial break, that was an odd color for the occasion.

Nothing with the Clintons is an accident; we all know that.  So what were her handlers actually thinking?  I did myself a little research into one's choice of colors for attire, relative to the occasion.  And while sure, there are impressions left with brown clothing relating to "stability" and "trust" -- impressions she desperately needs to influence because she is thought of as grossly political and completely untrustworthy -- there is one other interesting factoid about wearing brown as a choice:

It moves the focus to other surrounding elements with actual colors.

That's right, and given that it was an intentional, strategic choice, we can only imagine why Hillary Clinton would like to have some of the focus taken off her and over to the other candidates who wore, well, blue ties, and on the colors of the auditorium there.

The DNC, of course, denies that the absurd schedule of debates is intended to keep the focus off Hillary Clinton, hoping that the less people see her, the better it is for her image.  But the facts are what they are -- so few debates that even an extreme leftist commentator like Alan Colmes was complaining the next morning about not having the debates in prime time.

I see the bland, brown outfit as a perfect metaphoric complement to the debate schedule -- no one believes that Sanders or O'Malley are good enough debaters to challenge Hillary's nomination, if she isn't in prison by then.  Certainly the DNC doesn't, and apparently Hillary doesn't either.

Take the focus off the Democrats, and minimize their visibility.  When they have to expose things in the few debates, hidden as they are, go ahead and take the focus off Hillary to put her in the best light, lest we be reminded of how corrupt and untrustworthy she is.

Brown, brown, brown.  It's a strategy, and it doesn't say good things.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.