Rather I think that somehow Marlow has become convinced that his belief that Clinton was a fraud is equally as certain and obvious as his belief that bricks are solid.*
Exactly.

Like I said before:
Reality (all facts, known and not) is filtered through your senses and beliefs to form your opinion (which you then regard as "truth").

Marlowe has a particular opinion.
This opinion will result in only specific "facts" getting through to him.
These "facts" will be "verified" by him by seeing if they "work".
Of course, "work" will also be determined via his opinion (which filters and so on).

So, I point out that Clinton was elected (defeated Marlowe's boy).
And then Clinton defeated Marlowe's boy A SECOND TIME.
So, Clinton's campaign "worked" (the first time).
And Clinton's efforts while in office impressed enough people that they re-elected him.
And nothing Clinton did that was OBVIOUSLY wrong managed to affect him.
Sooooooo...... it would seem that what Clinton was doing was "working".
Since "what works" is a test for "The Truth" in Marlowe's world....
Clinton had "The Truth".

But then the filters cut in and Marlowe says that because Clinton didn't follow Marlowe's opinion on what the political agenda should be, then Clinton didn't "work" because when he left office, the country was further from Marlowe's opinion of where it should be than it was when Clinton started.

In other words, what "works" is whatever advances Marlowe's CURRENT opinion of how things should work.

What doesn't "work" is whatever does NOT advance Marlowe's CURRENT opinion .........

Reality (all facts, known and not) is filtered through your senses and beliefs to form your opinion (which you then regard as "truth").
-AND THEN-
Since you "know" that your opinion is "based on facts", it becomes self-supporting.

In other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine if what >YOU< believe is actually based on facts or not because there is no OBJECTIVE standard for "works" and the "facts" that you perceive are already filtered.

Which gets back to my other example of the Scientologists.
They have a belief about the universe that is supported by their "experiments" with their "equipment".
And their experiments seem to validate their beliefs.

But then, EVERYONE'S beliefs seem to be validated by their experience.
This, once again, gets back to the bit about us filtering what is actually happening.

And NO ONE can say (well, actually, just about everyone does say it) that his/her >OPINION< is more valid than someone else's "because I base my opinion on facts". Because that would indicate that that person has access to OBJECTIVE information about the facts. Which is impossible because every person filters.

Then, some people say that they only accept what "works". Again, what "works" is defined as what fits his/her current >OPINION< of the universe. This is because they do not have access to >OBJECTIVE< criteria for "what works".

In other words, they base their opinion on "facts" filtered by their opinion and validate these "facts" against what "works" with their opinion.

Just as the Scientologists do.

Just as every religion does.