The Trust Issue: Hillary's Achilles Heel

Do you fully trust Hillary Clinton? or Bill for that matter?

Polls show this to be one of her weakest points. Many people just don't see her as honest.
Even her supporters will freely admit that she is loose with the truth. They will say, "She's just a politician, they all do it."

This has yet to become a major issue in this campaign. But after Obama bringing up her factually incorrect attacks in the debate last night, the newsmedia has jumped on this.
Everywhere you see 'FactChecks' or 'Keepin em Honest' spots. ex: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/22/599798.aspx
They are discussing these claims on the air.

This is not good for the Clintons. Their strategy is old school Politics.
Manipulation of the truth and an opponent's record.

But this method was all developed in the Pre-Youtube days. Now nothing they say can be hidden.
It's all out there to be watched a million times and researched for factual integrity.

Let them keep spinning their wicked web.
They will be seen in a bright new light that wasn't shining in the late 90's.

If they continue moving in this direction, not far down the road lie tales of Impeachment and the definition of what 'is' is.

Honesty is the best policy.
But is it the Clinton policy?

Therein lies the Rub...

whispering in your ear. I think HRC will adapt, adopt and improve.

performance. Yes, she has been honest - not a whiff of scandal or corruption.

That just means you haven't been caught for anything.

Do you think she has ever intentionally misrepresented the truth to the Public?

performed as our junior senator should. It's an interesting state, with a conservative upstate balanced by the populous, liberal city. But once upon a time, the Hudson River was vital to us, so they retain the political upper hand. HRC has negotiated this political scenery w/alacrity.

She never misrepresented anything to me, but I read legislation carefully.

"She never misrepresented anything to me, but I read legislation carefully."

What a careful parsing of words. Does this imply that she misrepresented the truth to people other than you?

being strategically ambiguous. Seriously, this is diplomacy.

got it. Thanks.

What has she done that wasn't utterly uncontroversial? Medals for those who fought in the Cold War? A flag-burning bill?

Well, she did vote the opposite of most Congressional Democrats on the IWR...

Chuck Schumer, her colleague. We judged her on how well she could stay out of the headlines. Get it?

If she could remain low, it meant she was sincere about doing her job for an entire first term. Beyond that - and we knew it - we would support her national ambitions.

That's been the plan and I've been a follower for years. By definition, that makes HRC a leader.

One of us is odd.

the UN was specifically mentioned as the first resort. Instead, we invaded. At the time, I honestly didn't think * would do it ... he had not followed the law. Turns out later, it's a pattern.

I guess you and Clinton didn't notice. But most Democrats in Congress did notice, and they voted against war.

Do you think she'll ever come back to visit once she has moved on to greener pastures?

Thanks for the post!

K&R

... why the Clintons are so widely assumed to be dishonest to a greater degree than other politicians.

Actually keeping track of their lies (alleged and real) shows them to be more honest than most of their opponents have been. (And, to keep it from becoming another beauty-pageant squabble, let's exclude Barack Obama from that group.) Even jokes, like Bill's famous "I did not inhale" quip, are re-cast as serious statements and, ergo, lies.

I think they are perceived as duplicitous because a) it's difficult to disprove that charge, and b) they are very intelligent, and intelligent people are often thought to be "bullshitters" who use their brains to trick other people, especially by reactionary populists like most of their opponents.

The OP has clearly bought into this line of thinking. ("Manipulation of the truth and an opponent's record. ... Let them keep spinning their wicked web. ... the definition of what 'is' is.") Added to the normal partisanship that assumes one's candidate to be without sin, and his or her adversaries as the incarnation of evil, this has led to the "irony" of naked Clinton-hatred among leftists.

And at the point where the myth becomes more important than fact, reality is replaced with what people (e.g., the MSM) like to call "not the truth" ... but will never call it "lies".

Win or lose, I can only shudder to think of how these dynamics will play against Barack Obama, too. If he does lose the primary contest, he stands an excellent chance of becoming a major Democratic leader; I would not count him out of future presidential runs in that event. But it only takes a short time for a derogatory narrative to be developed against anyone -- not just Hillary Clinton. And the Republicans are prodigious mythologizers.

--p!

power hungry than most politicians.

The Republican machine is always turned up to 10, always focusing on attacking those with power. The Clintons had power, they had the crap thown at them. So I think you're right.

If Hillary avoids a few traps, I don't think this will be too big an issue. The best win we could possibly have is the one where we get the person in the Republicans have thrown crap at for 16 years, because that shows an awareness of the reality that what the republicans are throwing here is indeed CRAP, rather than giving in and saying "okay okay, the clintons were evil we agree. But how do you like THIS guy???" We don't need to be in that position, its absolutely clueless.

And the Clintons have told plenty of them.

"A lie is a lie is a lie. ..." Except when one's favorite is doing it.

I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds, of essays, and five books, about the Clintons' lies. About a third of them were from the left. All were screeds that cited almost exclusively non-lies; some made up quite a bit of falsehood themselves. It actually pushed me from being a harsh critic of Bill's to a supporter. And I first heard of Hillary herself from a fundy who was convinced that she was a witch who wanted to brainwash everyone in the USA to reject Jesus and accept Satan.

I think the Big Lie Technique is at work in a "hip," ironic way -- call someone a liar often enough, and it sticks. People will dig deep and whatever they find that didn't work out, they will label a lie. "See, I caught X in a lie! I was right!"

This quickly turns into "All politicians are liars" and "I alone am fit to judge who is lying and who is not". And it never works.

And of course, moral outrage covers up a lot of mistakes, too.

--p!

"the Clintons are so widely assumed to be dishonest to a greater degree than other politicians."

This is exactly the point I make above.

You accept their dishonesty from the get-go. You never expect more of them.

You are willing to just put another liar in the White House because you think they are on your team?

How do you know they aren't misleading you?

Only the single-most important vote in decades - and most Democrats in Congress voted against it.

That bastard Obama was against it.

Had the foresight the clintons only dream about.

Better to be "strong and wrong" than weak & right.

When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right," Clinton said.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/strong_and_wrong_vs_weak_and_r.html

Strong & Wrong. Certainly wrong. But trustworthy?

That is a very low bar for presidential qualification.

said Obama has the best plan for national security. I would think Roemer is in a position to know, don't ya think?

And I do not want 4 or 8 years of wondering, and doubting, and suspecting I might be getting conned.

I have already caught her twisting the truth too many times in the debates.

First let me say I am not doing this to slam any of the candidates - this is just my gut reaction to them and why I decided to vote for Obama. Other people may not see what I see.

This was a big portion of my decision. I don't trust Hillary - A big reason was that I didn't understand why she stayed with Bill Clinton after everything he put her through - I would think a woman who respects herself would be strong enough to leave - the only conclusion I could come to was that all she cared about was power/politics, and not for her own personal dignity. I feel a lot of this is all a political calculation and I feel she'll do anything to win - even lie. This along with what I feel is a leaning towards corporate interests, and past pro war stance make this an easy decision.

Edwards - just seems too good to be true/ a little too slick. I just have a feeling that while he is saying what I like to hear I am not sure I can trust him. I could be wrong about him, but I don't think so. I wouldn't mind if Edwards won but I'm not sure about him.

I don't get this from Obama - he just seems the most trustworthy to me, and that's the main thing I value in a candidate.

Meg

we wouldn't trust with our lunch money? Time to be in the 21st century and forge ahead with real leadership..not some power hungry couple who want to relive the '90's.

Haven't heard that one from a Hillary supporter ever since this morning. Seriously.

;)

"she's a politician, they all lie", just this morning. What an excuse for bad behavior!

Then again, we generally always lose big when conservat-er, I mean "centrists" get their way. (Think Alito, think impeachment, think Iraq, think Moveon & Stark censure, think "dry powder" in general.)

That is, unless you count the 2006 "we dont have the votes" DEM congress, Lieberman's defeat of Lamont, or the marginalization of the pro impeachment/anti war Democrats as DLC "wins"...

They ALWAYS attack her for lying. Obama just deliberately misunderstands and explains his false outrage in distorting what Clinton's say or mean. Oh, but that's not lying. People here take his side of spin then use that as proof Clinton is a liar rather than a disagreement over the facts. :grr:

Obama doesn't make a living misrepresenting things that Hillary has done.
He tries to speak to the issues. Recently, however, he has had to defend himself of the Clinton's half-truths and disinfo.

Bill Clinton attacked Obama for his anti-War stance, misquoting him and saying it was a Fairytale.
Obama defended himself and set the record straight. Hillary even admitted last night that he was against the war from the beginning.

Bill and Hillary both attacked Obama for his comments regarding Reagan, and proceded to misrepresent what he had said.
Obama had to defend himself again.

Hillary's surrogates have insinuated Obama was a drug dealer, a Muslim, a Homophobe etc.
Obama has had to defend himself against the falsities. He has even been asked questions in debates about this crap.

Why must he continually defend himself from false claims?

Why can't Hillary campaign on her own merits, rather than trying to misrepresent Obama to the voters?

It seems the Clinton Campaign has decided that they cannot honestly win this race,
they can only cause Obama to lose.

Obama DELIBERATELY willfully (fake made up outrage) distorted Clinton's meaning of what he said. That was NOT a racist comment....so who was misrepresenting who? Hillary did not demean MLK. Another case of convenient misunderstanding on purpose. Seems to me Clinton was the one who was defending herself from being called a racist. I think you have been drinking too much Obama kool-aid. Slow down ad catch your breath or you'll drowned.

Obama said nothing regarding the MLK comment until days after it was made and the uproar had began. Clinton began blaming him for people being offended by her statement, and he said that her comment was unfortunate but not racist. He made no other characterization of it.

I ask again, why is Hillary Clinton's Campaign all about Barack Obama?

Maybe Obama didn't say anything himself for days...he just let his surrogates say it for him till it got throughly planted in the media. Then he called the dogs off. I think that was despicable. Why didn't he tell the media that it wasn't true for days? I can't forgive him for that.

Funny how everything is seen so opposite by the different parties.
I wonder if it's deliberate on both parties wanting to smear the other? Nah! Us Dems would never do such a thing. We are all innocent!

better they just make it about Obama, huh?

So it's true - she does bring about change.

Sam

they will respond to this change in the People too late.

around here. Do not be concerned that I suffer from clouded vision ... just a warped sense of humor.

Sam

and it's about time.

We will not tackle any of the major issues facing this country if we cannot unite this country.

when ask if you believe Obama or this guy and his wife, who should one believe? :shrug:

is what most Americans have been exposed to about the Clintons. The media replayed that clip about a billion times and it was that moment that Bill Clinton was exposed as a flaming liar.

When Bill gets all hopped up he cannot hide it well can he?

I've seen a lot of accusations of lies. But they invariably get debunked. The anti-Clinton people, however, simply ignore the debunkings and go on repeating their lies. It has a compulsive feel to it.

When the Clintons both said Obama praised Ronald Reagan, that was false.

When Bill Clinton said Obama's anti-War stance was a fairytale, that was false. Hillary admitted as much in the debate.

Debunk these please.

BUT!!!

No, I don't trust her -- and that is at the core of why I am not a supporter. Clinton politics are old style win-at-any-cost, scorched earth.

I want a president who wants to serve the people, not someone who wants it because it is power for the taking.

Right, wrong or indifferent -- that is how I see her.

They are desperate to throw the attention off of from Hillary,
who is getting caught in one lie after another by the MSM.

For some reason the 'Keepin em Honest' meme has spread like wildfire.
Everybody is doing fact checks.

This is not good for the Clintons.

They are trying to shield themselves with Rezko!Rezko!Rezko!,
but in the end, their tendency to be untruthful will get the better of them.