Over the weekend, Lynn Vanvreck, writing for the Upshot section of the embattled New York Times, came up with a funky—but very accurate—window into why Hillary Rodham Clinton can't get her feet untangled from the "optics" surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Quite simply, many people in the country don't know what they're talking about on the subject, which doesn't keep them from being absolutely sure about the foundation's notorious "corruption." From the Times:

Among people who thought they could answer a question about what the foundation does, more than half (56 percent) think that setting up speaking engagements for the Clintons is one of its activities. This answer was chosen more than any other, including the charitable activities the foundation actually is engaged in, like combating AIDS in Africa (47 percent chose this answer), providing schoolchildren with healthful food choices (29 percent), and helping girls and women through education and training (43 percent). Although some money from the Clintons' speeches ends up at the charity (and the Clintons may speak on behalf of the charity), booking speeches is not a central activity of the Clinton Foundation.

Of course it is, because speaking fees, and e-mails, and Benghazi, and shadows, and clouds, and narrative.

More surprising, 39 percent of registered voters think the Clinton Foundation manages the personal finances of the Clinton family, and 40 percent also think the foundation gives money to Democratic candidates. (It does neither of these things.)

I am not surprised at all.

Most telling are the attitudes of independents — which are characteristically between the partisan beliefs. Responses from the 48 percent of independents who had some knowledge of the work the foundation does looks similar to the average responses among registered voters. Sixty percent of the independent voters offering opinions believe that part of the foundation's work involves setting up speaking gigs for the Clintons. Only 48 percent of the independents knew that the foundation worked to combat AIDS in Africa, or to empower girls (43 percent), or to provide healthful lunches to schools (25 percent). Moreover, four out of 10 independents incorrectly believe one of the jobs of the foundation is to manage the family's personal finances.

In my experience, self-declared "independents" are mainly either undercover Republicans or apathetic dolts.

It isn't so surprising that many voters don't have much information about the foundation. What may be surprising is that even though there is no lack of transparency about the charitable work the foundation does, it doesn't seem to matter. A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over.

Holy narrative, Batman. How could this have happened? Let's ask Liz Spayd, the new "public editor" of the embattled New York Times, who's had a bit of a rough launch in her new gig.

I asked the political editor Carolyn Ryan about when that word gets clearance for use. Her definition of a lie is when there's a deliberate attempt to deceive — when someone knowingly fails to tell the truth. "A lie is different from the spin, exaggerations and squabbling between candidates that are commonplace in politics," she said. "It is not a word we will use lightly." These are the factors that Ryan said would determine the conditions under which the word is used: It is not used for matters of opinion, but only when the facts are demonstrably clear; intentionality is important — in the case of Trump and birtherism, he repeated the lie for years, in the face of overwhelming facts that disproved it, suggesting this was a deliberate attempt by Trump to deceive. It is not used to police more frivolous disputes among political candidates or political factions. "Lie" is a loaded word, all right, a favorite of campaign operatives. You score every time you can get the media to catch your opponent in one, and it's into the bonus round if you can get them to actually call it a "lie."

I swear, I spent a lot of my life around Jesuits, and damned if I can figure out how thinly Ryan and Spayd have sliced the salami here. I never heard one of them mention "frivolous" as a mental reservation to loophole the Eighth/Ninth Commandment. I guess that's why concepts like "shadows" and "clouds" and "transparency" were invented. What is very clear, however, is that American political journalism is helpless against a relentless demagogue, and that the American people may ever be worse.

Click here to respond to this post on the official Esquire Politics Facebook page.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io