2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest | Jill Abramson - The Guardian
Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.
For decades shes been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as a congenital liar and accused of covering up her husbands misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the Hillary is a liar videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or zone of privacy that she protects too fiercely. Its a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny shes attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.
I would be dead rich, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours Ive spent covering just about every scandal that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor Ive launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. Im not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy. (continued at the link below)
...Link to the fulll article at The Guardian
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Sniper fire!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and Bill while traveling with a film crew (i.e., he was not a member of the campaign) during one of Bill's presidential campaigns. He likes Hillary and says she's a nice woman and can be pretty funny when she's relaxed. She likes to laugh.
He is, of course, voting for her. For him, a no-brainer.
dchill
(38,502 posts)numerous times. Still bullshit, though. Hard evidence says she's fundamentally DIS-honest.
840high
(17,196 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)What does that even mean? A person is either honest or they are not.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Spoken: "Well, she's fundamentally honest..."
Unspoken: "...but circumstances sometimes call for a different approach."
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)explains Bosnian sniper fire, the Rose law firm documents suddenly reappearing, Chelsea jogging around the Trade Center on 9/11, and on and on and on.
This article is just more tired tripe that spans the gambit from poor victim Hillary to it is a sexist double standard to call her a liar to well Politifacts says she honest to the 'purity' bullshit.
Sorry no sale, I am not buying hers or your bullshit. I have seen the Clintons in action since the late 1980's in Arkansas. I don't need some bullshit media person to tell me what I have seen for myself to be true.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)This may shock you. Enough said.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Bill Clinton is a fundamentally faithful husband.
He never lied. When he said "I did not have sex with that woman" what he was
actually saying was that woman had sex with him.
If we're too stupid to understand what he really meant, that's not his fault. How clear
does he have to make it before we all get it? Sheesh. Same thing with sniper fire in
Bosnia.
I speak fluent Clintonese.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If she says A... she reserves the right to later clarify that she meant Z. Our failure to understand that distinction is a result of taking her misstatements out of context.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She claimed that her "misstatement" on putting coal miners out of work was taken out of the context of what she meant.
WTF?
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)She was attempting in both cases to convey her intention to help the coal country which has been hit very hard. And she had and still has a 30 billion dollar program of aid and investment to help them. The first time they took her comments to mean she was going to shut them down (coal industry) when what she was meaning is it is already happening (disappearing) due to regs and economic reasons. She went one on one with a republican local man who had been laid off and listented to him and explained what she promises to do for his community whether they vote for her or not.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)she's lying. Or pandering. Then there's spin. Occasionally misstating.
Nuff said.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,181 posts)Like "Sure, the defendant killed his parents, ground them up, and fed them to the hedgehogs, but they refused to let him have a pony when he was six."
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)Sad how few of us have watched it and recognized it, but whatever. Only the most devout devotee to Scientism believes, well, almost anything coming from the Voice of the Narrative anymore.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like the time she did a major for CIA, ignoring war criminals and traitors and stuff:
Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA
Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT
EXCERPT...
But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.
SNIP...
Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:
"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.
CONTINUED with LINKS...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia
I wonder what other important stories Ms. Abramson spiked or hawked as a "favor" to CIA and its controllers?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)She speaks her literal truth, but lies by obfuscating her "literal truth". Usually.
But, when the truth doesn't help her, she outright, blatantly lies to your face.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-where-was-bernie-during-my-health-care-fight-sanders-camp-literally-behind-you/
bjo59
(1,166 posts)She was the former executive director at the New York Times, a deputy bureau chief at the Wall Street Journal, was ranked 5th on Forbes' list of most powerful women, and ranked one of the 500 most powerful people by Foreign Policy. Hmmm. Is there any question that she's a Hillary Clinton supporter and has every reason to write that Clinton is fundamentally honest in the Guardian during a primary season in which Hillary Clinton is a candidate? The mainstream media has been working in support of Hillary Clinton's campaign since its beginning and of course Abramson would claim that Clinton is fundamentally honest to counteract the widespread belief that she is not.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Hillary is dis-honest GUT feel that is a result of all the baseless attacks on her over the years. People can be made to believe anything, they don't know who to get the TRUTHINESS from so they follow the crowd.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And the VOTERS don't think so either
.