bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,342
- 2,180
I marvel at Dims who claim she's a good candidate:
One year ago this month, a Quinnipiac University poll of voters in three swing states highlighted a looming problem for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign: More than half the respondents in each state regarded her as dishonest. A nationwide CNN poll the same month yielded similar findings: Fifty-seven percent of voters said Clinton was not trustworthy.
Democratic sages brushed the matter aside. "Does Hillary Clinton's Trustworthiness Matter?" asked Time magazine in a story at the time. The consensus of the experts it quoted: Nah, not really. "People are looking first and foremost for someone who will . . . get things done for them," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Honesty wasn't essential to victory. After all, went the argument, Bill Clinton won two presidential elections, despite widespread doubt about his trustworthiness. For that matter, so had Richard Nixon.
But Clinton's dishonesty problem hasn't gone away. When Gallup asks Americans what word first comes to mind when they hear Clinton's name, by far the most common answer is some version of "Dishonest/ Liar/ Don't trust her/ Poor character." It isn't only Republicans or conservatives who are repelled by Clinton's honesty deficit. Exit polls during this year's primaries showed that among Democrats who said that honesty was the value they prize most in a presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders racked up huge margins over Clinton. He carried 91 percent of those voters in New Hampshire, for example, and 82 percent in Wisconsin.
With the release last week of a report by the State Department's inspector general on Clinton's misuse of official e-mail, the former secretary of state's reputation for mendacity only grew worse.
For a year or more, Clinton has insisted that she broke no rules by maintaining her own private email server to conduct government business. She repeatedly claimed that she had nothing to hide from investigators. That she was "more than ready to talk to anybody anytime." That her reliance on a back-channel for email violated no security protocols. That it was not only "allowed by the State Department," but that the department had "confirmed" that it was allowed. That her use of a private server was "fully aboveboard." That everyone she had dealings with in the government knew about it.
But the inspector general's report shreds those claims.
Democratic sages brushed the matter aside. "Does Hillary Clinton's Trustworthiness Matter?" asked Time magazine in a story at the time. The consensus of the experts it quoted: Nah, not really. "People are looking first and foremost for someone who will . . . get things done for them," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Honesty wasn't essential to victory. After all, went the argument, Bill Clinton won two presidential elections, despite widespread doubt about his trustworthiness. For that matter, so had Richard Nixon.
But Clinton's dishonesty problem hasn't gone away. When Gallup asks Americans what word first comes to mind when they hear Clinton's name, by far the most common answer is some version of "Dishonest/ Liar/ Don't trust her/ Poor character." It isn't only Republicans or conservatives who are repelled by Clinton's honesty deficit. Exit polls during this year's primaries showed that among Democrats who said that honesty was the value they prize most in a presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders racked up huge margins over Clinton. He carried 91 percent of those voters in New Hampshire, for example, and 82 percent in Wisconsin.
With the release last week of a report by the State Department's inspector general on Clinton's misuse of official e-mail, the former secretary of state's reputation for mendacity only grew worse.
For a year or more, Clinton has insisted that she broke no rules by maintaining her own private email server to conduct government business. She repeatedly claimed that she had nothing to hide from investigators. That she was "more than ready to talk to anybody anytime." That her reliance on a back-channel for email violated no security protocols. That it was not only "allowed by the State Department," but that the department had "confirmed" that it was allowed. That her use of a private server was "fully aboveboard." That everyone she had dealings with in the government knew about it.
But the inspector general's report shreds those claims.
