This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton … -Salon

Like machine-gun fire, rat-tat-tat, three major mainstream publications in a row have recently posted stories featuring a “weak” Hillary Clinton.

This further strengthens our hypothesis that the Hillary may not ever make it to the presidential race.

We first wrote about this late last week in an article entitled, Signs from Mainstream Media that Clinton’s Campaign Might be Over.

Here’s our lead from that article:

When we start to see admissions in the mainstream media that Hillary’s public persona is perceived as “crooked,” we have to wonder if she is going to end up as the Democratic nominee.

The operative word here was “crooked.”

In these three articles, which we are analyzing now, the operative word for Hillary is “weak.”

According to Internet search facilities, there are over 500 characterizations of Hillary as “crooked” in the past month, with most of them coming in the last week.

There are 50 characterizations of Hillary as “weak” – almost all in the past week.

That doesn’t sound like much. However, the terms are not mere asides but are often embedded in the headlines of major publications that reach millions.

Today’s Washington Post lead article, posted first on Drudge on Sunday, begins, “Even supporters agree: Clinton has weaknesses as a candidate. What can she do?”

Meanwhile, we can see, above, the lead of a Salon article, also featured on Drudge, features the word “weak.”

And a recent Huffington Post article states, “Why Hillary Clinton Would Be a Weak Presidential Nominee for Democrats.”

As we have pointed out, this is significant because mainstream Western media is a reflection of globalist interests, especially when themes such as this – the “weakness” Hillary Clinton – emerge.

A handful of owners have consolidated mainstream Western media. In the US, there are said to be six owners, but there are probably fewer than that.

The main message on which mainstream media concentrates is globalism.

Inevitably, problems are introduced that only government, especially international government, can resolve.

The purpose of media in the modern day is to build a consensus for internationalism.

Hillary Clinton seems to be falling afoul of this globalist imperative.

It is fairly easy to see from mainstream publications that her internationalist proponents are struggling with her unpopularity, her “untrustworthiness” and thus her “weakness.”

This is not an unusual occurrence. Something similar probably happened to Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks was likely a globalist false flag designed as a “limited hangout.” (Assange worked for the internationalist Economist “newspaper” before somehow emerging as head of Wikileaks.)

When Assange was accused of rape, he fled back to England, but could not reach an understanding with his backers.

Instead, he ended up seeking shelter in an Ecuador mission where he remains to this day.

Likewise, Hillary’s globalist proponents may be having second thoughts about her electability.

One can almost sense the indecision in these three articles.

Hillary has not yet been consigned to the loser’s column, but the calculus seems headed in that direction.

In our previous article, we floated several alternative scenarios regarding Hillary’s political future.

One was that Hillary had run with the understanding that she was going to drop out of the race in order to facilitate the campaign of another Democrat who would win.

A second is that she will be prevailed upon to retire due to health reasons or because she has been indicted over her email indiscretions and then receive a presidential pardon.

If she does manage to prevail and run for president, we wonder if the mainstream media coverage will continue to be negative.

Perhaps, after all, it is Trump who is being groomed for the presidency.

After all, Trump is verbalizing a good deal of what people are angry about. Importantly, his presence has resuscitated an otherwise corrupt and dysfunctional system.

A Trump victory would at least momentarily rejuvenate federalism and provide some “breathing room” for those who wish to continue to undermine it.

Conclusion: Time will tell about these conjectures. But one way to ascertain their direction and validity is to study the messages in the mainstream media and then try to read beneath the surface. Because of its homogenized messaging, the mainstream often offers us clues about the direction of  globalist propaganda and where it is hoped we will travel.