Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest - Jill Abramson - the Guardian

[Bill USA]

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:21 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

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 she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s 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. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s 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 I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. [font size="3"]As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.[/font]

~~

The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

As for her statements on issues,[font size="3"] Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump[/font], who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

~~
~~

It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.

[Loudestlib]

1. Yes, all those polls were people find her dishonest are wrong.

[riversedge]

2. no--it is just an accumulation of 30 yrs of hard RW attacks on her.

[silvershadow]

3. Yes intramural sparring is tough between the hard right and the soft right. nt

[rock]

4. And a half-year of BSers made-up attacks on her

The RW is not the group of people that don' care a whit for facts or truth.

[Loudestlib]

6. These poll go back to 08............

[Bill USA]

14. Fools for Scandal: How The Media Invented Whitewater - published in 1996

Fools for Scandal: How The Media Invented Whitewater

[font size="3"]
Before he created, with Joe Conason, The Hunting of the President, the critically acclaimed documentary film about Whitewater, Gene Lyons published his research into the Whitewater scandal in Harper's.

.....That research later became a book - Fools for Scandal, which scathingly debunks the received wisdom that was handed down to the national media with the Whitewater scandal. Lyons shows the reader a media (especially The New York Times) that was driven to pin something - anything-on the Clintons, and that, in its impassioned quest for scandal, found itself making strange bedfellows with right-wing organizations such as Citizens United, and leading Republicans Al D'Amato and Lauch Faircloth. For anyone curious to understand how the printing press becomes a political machine, Fools for Scandal is illuminating, engaging, and revealing.[/font]

Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater. By Gene Lyons and the editors of Harper's Magazine

'The most sacred cow of the press,' the late George Seldes use to say, 'is the press itself.' Reporters who pore over politicians' words with the rapt attention of an IRS auditor scrutinizing a bookie's tax return . . . recoil in horror at their own work getting anything like the same treatment. Hence Whitewater. . . . Anybody who tried to pitch 'Whitewater' to a Hollywood producer would find the task impossible . . . no smoking gun, no 18 1/2-minute tape erasure merely an endlessly shifting list of accusations and rhetorical questions. . . . [H]ow very unlikely it seems that Bill and Hillary Clinton would go into the tank for such trivial amounts of money. Whatever their character flaws, nothing known about the couple indicates that they would break the law for profit . . . the Clintons are arguably the least wealthy couple to occupy the White House this century."

Whether it's due to corporate ownership or fear of retribution from the Rabid Right* the M$M has shown a fervent desire to ingratiate itself with the Republican party by helping lend credence to the many Pseudo-scandals and Big Lies husbanded by the Conservative Propaganda infrastructure. The New York Times, in particular has shown a willingness to grovel before the GOP.


* In the 1990's when CBS displeased the Republican Party, a syndicate of super wealthy Conservatives was being put together with the objective of buying CBS. In the end it never happened. But the message was taken to heart by the M$M: if you are not already owned by corporations in the hands of Conservatives - you CAN BE. From that time onward, the media became much more cautious about reporting that might hurt the delicate sensibilities of the Rabid Right.

[Loudestlib]

5. Yep!

And the polls showing Hillary winning are just land line polls that are all wrong.


LOL

Let's not delude ourselves here.

[Cassiopeia]

7. No, it's 30 years of Hillary taking every side of every issue.

You can't have multiple positions on the same issue and expect to be trusted.

[That Guy 888]

8. When she shifts position from state to state, gun control in NY vs Annie Oakley in PA...

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

why would anyone think she was dishonest? She's been on every side of every issue and shifts it back and forth depending upon who she's talking to. Standard politics doesn't work in the age of smart phones and online video.

The speaking fees grant access that most don't have. It is corrupting to our political process, and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

Worst thing is after all these years no one knows what her core beliefs are besides wanting desperately to be the first woman President.

[zalinda]

9. Hell, even her accent changes depending on what state she's in. eom

[Doctor_J]

10. The writer of this article is nuts

Hillary is probably the least trusted candidate in US history.

[Bill USA]

15. interesting how you can't comprehend a process of using your own intellect to examine facts and come

up with your own conclusions as opposed to letting a meme tell you what your thoughts are! You are a personification of 'group think' and any Josef Goebbels dream lemming.

[Herman4747]

11. The notion that she's "fundamentally honest" was shot down...

by invisible sniper fire years ago.

[Carolina]

13. DUzy Award!!!!

[Bill USA]

16. while you offer us Trump, the synthetic person, all blowhard & zero substance.

[Bill USA]

17. "Politifact .. gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any candidate... She beats Sanders"

from the article: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

[font size="+1"]As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders..[/font]

[OnyxCollie]

12. LOL!

[Baobab]

18. Listen to the defendng the rapist tape wher she laughs about getting him off.

I mean she laughs. Its definitely her.

being gang raped literally ruined this girls life, she was 12 when it happened, she is in her 50s now.