2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYouGov Poll: Hillary Clinton Is MOST Dishonest And Untrustworthy Candidate
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still the Democratic favorite for the presidency, and she has always received high marks for her toughness and readiness to be Commander-in-Chief. In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll more Americans say she is ready to be Commander-in-Chief than say that about any of six other contenders. There is also more trust in her ability to handle terrorism, although Americans have doubts about all the candidates (as well as about President Obama). But the latest Economist/YouGov Poll also highlights what has been Clinton’s greatest weakness – the perception that she lacks honesty and integrity.
Compared with six other leading Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, only one other is seen as not honest and trustworthy by half of the public – Republican businessman Donald Trump. And the candidate who fares best when it comes to perceived honesty and integrity among the public overall is Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Americans’ perceptions of Clinton have been divided between the positive of perceived strength and the negative of perceived dishonesty for a long time. In an Economist/YouGov Poll conducted last year, those who don’t like Clinton (a group that includes 86% of Republicans in this poll) used the word “liar” more than any other to describe her. Those who liked Clinton most often used the word “strong.”
One reason Sanders fares as well as he does on the question of honesty is that Republicans and especially independents think better of his trustworthiness than they do of Clinton’s. While independents say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy by two to one, they say Sanders is, by nearly the same margin. On the other hand, Democrats see the two similarly.
cont'
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/12/15/clintons-persistent-honesty-problem/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)....The public really has formed a low trust opinion of Hillary to even best Trump after all the vitriol hate coming out of his mouth.
She has been in the "political" public eye for much longer that he has and has way more baggage than he has...If she ends up being the nominee they will pile it all on all the time and she most likely end up losing...
forest444
(5,902 posts)Much of it propagated by the media and their no holds-barred treatment of the Clintons over the years.
As opposed to the Donald, whom most voters don't even know that he has two divorces, countless infidelities and lawsuits for fraud (the Trump U. scam, for instance), and four bankruptcies that cost taxpayers several billion.
Having said that, we have to come to terms with the fact that nominating Hillary would be, as Trump would say, a yooge problem with the independent voters.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)but Hillary has done much to reinforce that opinion through her "Tall Tales" and frequent , 180 degree, position changes during her campaign.
Her evasive and ambiguous answers to direct policy questions make her look weaselly.
She gave them the ammo.
forest444
(5,902 posts)I realize they've given her very good reason to; but she's much too defensive and unfortunately that's all many voters come away with (that, compounded by her own record of spekaing out of both side of her mouth).
She's been working on it (her apparent defensiveness), and that's certainly to her credit. Changing ingrained habits isn't easy for anyone.
Her shady milieu is another question altogether. It may end up being the real deal-breaker for many voters (which is fine, just as long as it doesn't translate into Rethug votes).
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But it sure as hell will not be Hillary Clinton.
She's shaky in the Primary - I don't even want to know where her numbers will go in the GE.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)The longer that record grows the worse it gets.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She is have investigated by republicans over and over, and the
press never stop looking for any mistakes they can find
to call her dishonest with: no one can find anything on Hillary
or Clinton's because they are honest.
Its the GOP that have been selling this tale of dishonesty, because
they don't have anything else.
The American people trust Hillary that is why they want her to be president
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)being dishonest with yourself.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Some do. Most don't.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
Nitram
(27,942 posts)They do not provide evidence of any kind regarding Clinton's actual honesty.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lies themselves with the GOP, the GOP have made calling Hillary a liar
the center of the GOP propaganda campaign against her.
The Kochs have already spent 1b against the Dem's
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Tote Life
(72 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She has not lied
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)To Bernie who also has a long record, the difference being that most of his is truly verifiable, steady and good stuff.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And I'm assuming Republicans were included in this poll.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Her negatives are too high.
The Republicans have set up a scenario in which they can raise any of a number of bogus and in some cases possibly real issues that can upset her campaign at any moment at which they pull a string.
She's almost like a puppet on a string. The set-up is so entrenched in the minds of voters.
No matter what she does, and she makes enough self-defeating mistakes without the Republican and media set-up, she is going to meet serious problems as the election cycle progresses.
It's like a screen-writer who sets up a character for a big crisis. Watch the movie if you wish, but I see the ending, and it will only be pretty if somebody even worse is on the other side.
Democrats don't generally craft the screenplay as well as Republicans do. That's one of our weaknesses. Republicans do not play fair. Sorry. But they just don'.
Hillary is a weak candidate. Part of her vulnerability is that she and her admirers don't even realize how vulnerable she is. Especially, she doesn't realize it.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When it comes to November 2016, voters vote on who they trust and like.
Hillary clearly fails on both counts.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)She leads Sanders in most polls. You sound scared to death of Republicans and their propaganda machine. You're almost like a puppet on a string, responding to every twitch of right wing disinformation about Clinton. No matter what she does, you focus on bogus or petty Republican talking points. You're like someone in an audience watching a Republican propaganda film. You know its just a movie but you end up buying the premise. What you don't realize is that what you take for fact might be just a mirage of smoke and mirrors created by right wing puppeteers.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)nonsense about her. It is realistic to recognize that fact. Maybe Hillary has some magic plan to lower her negatives? Because she needs one. The negatives will decide the outcome of the 2016 election, not the positives.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Let's wait and see what happens...
Tote Life
(72 posts)Which is complete nonsense. You're just trying to back the leading horse. When Clinton loses both NH, IA and gets upset in SC, and loses again in NV, you'd be changing your tune before the firewall states hit.
840high
(17,196 posts)Nitram
(27,942 posts)That's really cold.
840high
(17,196 posts)rules don't apply to her.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)For progressives it was her cute answers on TPP, the keystone pipeline, and her donations. Hell, for a lot of progressives her donations themselves are a problem with how trustworthy she is.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...LONG before anyone said "Benhghazi" or "E-Mails".
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)No wonder her DU crew is trying so desperately to trash Bernie while idolizing her.
Although there have been some noticeable, large blocks of time when they are not posting at all.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)and his followers stop the relentless attacks.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)almost overnight. First she was trustworthy, the along came Bernie and his rag-tag bunch...then sure as shootin', tons of people saw her as untrustworthy.
Give me a break...please.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"If he's our nominee, McCain wont even have to work hard to win."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5161339
And
" I’ve never voted for anyone who wasn’t a democrat, and never will. I just wont vote this year if Barrack is the nominee, seriously, I would die before I’d ever cast a vote for that fake. No one in my house will vote for him either. He cant win the GE anyway. What a waste of a perfect chance to take back the Wh."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5847315
It's odd that people who say they love Obama are so friendly with you because you spoke of him exactly as you speak of Bernie.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)whenever I need a good laugh. Thank you for this. 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I want to find this later for the laughs.
This is every bit as good as the hypocrisy exposure of another DU member who works for FOX and was a Hillary Hater just 8 short years ago, calling her an outright "LIAR"among other choice insults,
but NOW...he is one of her biggest fans.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But I'd hate to be the person that said that on a Democratic board. Not to mention just plain being wrong about the electability of a candidate. Seems to be going for a 2fer. One would assume such a person would leave a "Democratic" board if two "non-Democrats" are elected in a row, not that electing the same one twice stopped them.
All that being said I don't mind someone like this as bad as the ones that hated Hillary in '08 but now love her and feel she has never done wrong.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Must be rough to be confronted with his own words.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Sen. Sanders has very little to do with Hillary Clinton's honesty and credibility problems.
The Sander's advocates on DU have a minuscule influence on the national stage ... so it is not their fault either.
The problem is that Hillary is just not a very likable personality, she is not charming or endearing. She is what she is and that is fine, but it also means that, well, she is what she is.
I met her in 1992 and she was brash then, a good advocate for her husband, but even then a rather distant and rigid personality.
Then, the mistake of putting her in charge of health care reform efforts ... then Whitewater, cattle futures, Lewinsky, pardons, etc.
All fake, of course, according to the Hillarians, nevertheless part of her political legacy.
She and Bill decided on the "let's get rich" course after the White House -- she and her husband are inextricably linked -- she is where she is because of the Clinton political machine. And denying that reality is what makes so many people just flat-out distrust her and what drives her (and Bill).
Everyone is paying attention to Trump and the Repuglicans right now, but just wait until the spotlight really hits Hillary next year. People just don't like her and if there is one way for the Democrats to lose in November 2016, it will be to put all their eggs in the Clinton basket.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Ahhhh.... the smug condescendence we've all come to expect.
Jackilope
(819 posts)The reason Sanders supporters are enthusiastic for hi is that he represents real change. There are people who have felt the system was rigged and never got involved before. The corporate ownership of candidates is a really huge thing. He could endorse, but that doesn't mean an enthusiastic frenzy rushing to Team Hillary. It would mean a resigned sigh and corporate politics as usual. Many, realistically, will continue to stay home despite the finger wagging of those telling them a vote for Hillary is better than the scary republicans. She is a corporate hawk and people do not trust her.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Rather than pointless declarations of Clinton's victory....
But I'm weird like that I guess....
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Too bad some liberals are drinking their koolaid too.
liberals don't agree with right wing.
we don't like her because of her war mongoring,wall street ties,and willing to sell out those on social safety net.You think right wingers are like that.Oh please.
attacking liberals for being like right wing for not liking clinton proves the point on some clinton supporters.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)You have absolutely no proof that any of these claims are true, nor that any of her statements or actions to date prove that she will do what you claim. But the right wing has been planting lies about the Clintons for decades now, and some are way too ready to believe them in their enthusiasm for Bernie.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)And, Hillary was really under sniper fire.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Bill Clinton wasn't being for investigated an affair. It was an expensive fishing expedition which lucked out and caught him in a lie about an affair after failing to find evidence of any of the original charges. So F'n what? My sense of morality is not offended by what consenting adults do in private, and the Grand Jury had no reason to ask about it in the first place.
As for sniper fire, Clinton has been warned about the danger and was most probably very nervous during the landing. She should have said she had been warned of the possibility rather than that she landed under sniper fire. Again, Big F'n deal! Got anymore right wing talking points to trot out this morning?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Go ahead and see what a real feminist says about that bullshit. As soon as that cheating SOB left the WH, I would have divorced his lame butt. And long before his POTUS term was over, he would have known that I was going to leave. I sure as hell can tell you that I would not have stood there and supported the lies he was telling. Do you understand that supporting a lie is the same as lying? It's a cover-up and if you think this is no big deal, then you learned less than -0- from Watergate.
And I like Bill Clinton...I just would not want him in my life as a partner because cheaters cannot be trusted. If Hillary thinks it's OK to cheat on her and use her as prop to get by with it, then that says more wrong about her and her personal idea that it is OK to be used and to use someone to get ahead. It's not just Monica -- look at Bill's history. What kind of a person puts up with this kind of betrayal in his/her life? Geeeeeeeeeeeez, give me a break. It's someone who will do ANYTHING to advance his/her own position, to hell with what is right or wrong.
I would have lived in a cardboard box rather than have to lie for a cheating husband and to stay with him long after the fact in order to promote myself. The difference between real feminists and Hillary is that real feminists have self-respect.
Do you get it yet? She aided in the cover-up...that IS a lie.
JMHO
Nitram
(27,942 posts)I've known several couples who have gone through the same. You seem to have a very moralistic, black-and-white view of marriage. Many couples work together and with a counselor to figure out if they want to stay together and how to stay together if that's what they want to do. Marriage relationships are incredibly complicated, and no outsider can judge how or why a couple decide to get divorced or not. Hillary most definitely would not be "OK" with what Bill did, no one would, but adults can decide to wok things out together no matter how distasteful it might seem at first.
Btw, do you have evidence that Hillary lied to protect her husband? that she "aided in a cover-up?"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Makes that line of argument seem extremely selective. DOMA represented a hugely moralistic, black and white view of marriage, did it not? It was all about outsiders having the right to control other couple's decisions, was it not? Why do you feel that some adults have such rights but others only have them if the majority says so?
If Bill and Hillary could back DOMA, and thus judge millions of other couples, they can not righteously claim that the privileges of marriage are for themselves sacrosanct. They can not have the cake and also eat the cake. The way you treat others, that's how you get treated according to the religion they say they believe so devoutly, the faith Hillary openly says she shares with Rick Warren as she praises all the good he does in his church for some pander points.
Hillary recently defended Bill's DOMA actions. Had she not done so, I'd not be mentioning this today. But she did. Cake and eat it too.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)But Bernie's vote did not mean he supported gay marriage, much as he would like to say so now.
"...Bernie Sanders is engaging in his own window dressing too. Yes, he voted against DOMA -- one of only 67 brave House members to do so -- and for that he gets a gold star, and it's certainly something he should be touting (and I've urged him to do so). But as Mark Joseph Stern pointed out recently, Sanders actually didn't support marriage equality at the time -- though he's glossing over that fact now, implying he did support it -- and said he voted against DOMA because he thought the states should not be intruded upon by the federal government. His chief of staff insisted he wasn't "legislating values." In 2006, two years after Massachusetts became the first state with marriage equality, Sanders identified himself as "a supporter of civil unions," and was still saying "marriage is a state issue."
www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/hillary-clinton-bernie-sa_b_8388726.html
So it was a vote for state's rights, not marriage equality - unless he was saying that for political cover, the same way the Clinton voted against DOMA for political cover. Your Golden Boy is not spotless, nor is he infallibly honest. Clinton suffers from being under a microscope for 30 years. But he must certainly have exaggerated on occasion (what the Bernistas here are terming "lying"
. And his change of tune on marriage equality is one of them. He was either lying then, or lying now according to your moral universe.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Nice try, no cigar.
I have a view on lying to cover up for anything -- including but not limited to a cheating husband -- it's not the right thing to do.
They live apart...so much for repairing the marriage and staying together. Sheesh...if you are going to respond, at least stick to the facts, OK?
And you know Hillary is NOT okay with what Bill did -- over and over again? Pray tell how you know the inner workings of her mind? She is a pal of yours?
LOL, as to your "BTW," look up Paula Jones and when you get a handle on the facts, please post back to me. But until such time, I am not responding to your non-factual replies.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Could you provide me a link about Hillary's cover up of Bill's dalliance?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Nitram
(27,942 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)John Edwards cheated on HIS wife....and was shamed and excommunicated from the Democratic Party for something YOU say "is betweeen a husband and a wife when it happens."
The Double Standard is nauseating.
If we excommunicate every Democrat who has cheated on his wife, we won't have much of a Party left.
I'm not looking for a nice guy, a new wife, a new BFF, a boarder, or a new neighbor.
I'm looking for a Junk Yard Dog who isn't afraid of a fight with Republicans (inside or outside the Democratic Party).
I don't care if he/she is purple, green, ugly, has BO and no teeth, cheats on his wife & dog,
if that SOB will fight for MY Working Class Ass and my friends who have fallen OUT of the Middle Class into frightening poverty (thanks, Bill & NAFTA).
Nitram
(27,942 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You are saying that Hillary should have divorced her husband to prove to the world she is a true feminist.
That says more about her accusers than it does about Hillary.
Laser102
(816 posts)The explainer in chief. The man who could talk the snakes out of the trees. There aren't many that could match him as far as intelligence, and political moxy. One thing to be a feminist, another to be short sighted. Hillary was intelligent enough to know she was much better with him than without him. Kudos to her.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)After an encounter like that it would be easy to forget what really went down and recall landing under gunfire and running away towards the safety of buildings.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)is WAY different from being warned of a possibility. Her lying about it isn't a RW talking point, it's a fact.
Now, if it doesn't bother you she lied about it, no problem. But some people see it as a reflection of who she is.
1:her speech on iraq in 2002 total wa rmongoring .she praised kissinger.she wanted to go further than obama in syria.she openly talked about going to war in iran.
2:Wall street ties is easy.why do you think wall street give money to clintons.untill primary she was all for tpp as she been for nafta
3:she supported wellfare reform which hurt single mothers.where do you think all this money for more war will be coming.from cutting soical safety net.sure won't be forom rasing taxes on rich.
easy to dismiss everything against her and bill as lie.and you think we liberals on these issues do it because we think republicans are better?no we dislike clintons and republicans on these issues.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)And we have the fact that she was only against the TPP a few weeks before the debate to get the issue off the table.
But yeah, large corporations, banks, bankers, and wall street bastards donating money never expect anything for their donations.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Nitram
(27,942 posts)I don't doubt Clinton was warned of the danger of sniper fire and probably was scared, and that she had deep worries about the debt they had incurred defending themselves from spurious charges and impeachment proceedings. I agree she exaggerated. There's a long jump from that to the corporatist Republican-lite war mongering charges she faces from Bernistas at DU on a daily basis.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Wow...I never knew it was OK to lie and say it did happen because it might have happened. Thanks for the clue-in onrules by which Hillary functions. This kind of "misspeak" may be OK with you...but it sure as hell is not OK with me.
JMHO
Nitram
(27,942 posts)She should have said she had been warned that they could very land under sniper fire. In a situation like that, fear frequently leads to distorted memory. there are numerous examples of this. But so what! She exaggerated?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)You are wrong: An exaggeration is not the truth and a lie is not the truth. Only the truth is the truth. Stop trying to make the truth out of a lie, OK? Everyone sees that she lied about this. Calling it an exaggeration does not make is any less a lie and most certainly does not make it the truth.
And if tense situations distort her memory...then she is not fit to be POTUS. It does appear to be a high tension job.
Wow...why cannot you just admit she LIED? :shrug;
Nitram
(27,942 posts)
Ino
(3,366 posts)Or that Hillary perceived it as such? Your link is talking about PTSD.
What other benign situations will cause her to go off the deep end, exaggerating a perceived threat, forgetting little girls giving her flowers while "remembering" ducking sniper fire?
I don't want someone like that to have her finger on the button. Do you??
Of course, I think she was just lying. You're the one who thinks her perceptions are skewed by fear.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)If you think a distorted memory in retrospect is equivalent to losing one's cool under fire, you just don't understand the reality of situations like that. I didn't say "skewed by fear", you are putting words in my mouth. I said distorted by stress and then added lack of sleep (thanks to Ino's superior recollection of the incident).
Ino
(3,366 posts)in an ever-evolving explanation of Hillary's lie...
most probably very nervous
probably was scared
she exaggerated
fear frequently leads to distorted memory (sounds just like "perceptions are skewed by fear" to me)
sleep deprivation and stress (after I pointed out that Hillary said her "misspeaking" was due to sleep deprivation)
an exaggeration that was helpful politically (a nice way of saying "lying for political gain"
...and you provided a link to an article about PTSD to illustrate how "in life and death situations the line gets fuzzier"
Now it's a "distorted memory in retrospect."
It's everything and anything but a simple out-and-out lie.
BTW, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said she lost her cool under fire. She was never under fire! My point was that if, as you claim, fear/stress/lack of sleep distorts her memory -- even in retrospect -- such that she forgets getting flowers on the tarmac from a little girl and instead "remembers" being shot at -- that is not a person I want with a finger on the button. However, I do not think this is at all true. You do. I just think she's a liar.
Now, in my superior recollection of incidents, I will direct you to the fact that Hillary wrote in 2003 in her memoir, Living History, an account that actually seems to fit the reality: "Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled 'Peace.'"
But in 2008, when running for President, the story began to evolve. She claimed that she and McCain had crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, unlike Obama. The trip to Bosnia was touted as part of her foreign policy experience, and the Bosnia story started getting more and more dangerous until she essentially was claiming combat experience. Funny how her memory was distorted just in time for her campaign! LOL
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillarys-adventures-abroad/
Ino
(3,366 posts)Hillary explained away the "sniper fire" by claiming it was due to sleep deprivation, not fear.
You two need to get your stories straight. 
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Is that so hard to understand. Unless you don't want to?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)You've successfully showed us she isn't stable enough to handle a 3 AM phone call at the white house.
The POTUS must be able to handle a fair amount of sleep deprivation and stress, and be able to function without resorting to these kinds of dangerous exaggerations.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)I get the picture. If Clinton exaggerates, it's an inexcusable lie. If Bernie were caught in an exaggeration that was helpful politically, would you change your mind about him?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)The difference is Bernie doesn't have a history of fabricating stories and details. She does. If the rolls were reversed and Bernie was the one with the history of making things up, or riding on half-truths, I'd absolutely call foul... and would very likely be a hillary supporter... but that's not how things are.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)I understand perfectly. You're the one who doesn't want to admit it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/
See also the Unusual Story of Hillary Trying to Join the Marines. Was she all tired & stressed when she told that whopper?
See stolen valor.
I don't see a flicker of fear or stress on her face. Or her daughter's! Or anyone else in this video. But I should believe you, and not my lying eyes, right?
Hillary is a congenital liar. She really can't help herself.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)She already had foreign experience. It didn't qualify as combat experience unless you consider visiting a war zone as combat experience. You are really doing one better than Clinton here - exaggerating freely.
Ino
(3,366 posts)I gave two links to OTHERS who said that, including Hillary "obviously false" Clinton herself: "Clinton has discussed the danger of the trip before and how it gave her important foreign policy experience."
Just stick your fingers in your ears. LA LA LA LA
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And all of the other public figures that exaggerated?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Would you given that you would have been warned of the danger and in fear of your life take your young daughter along for the ride?
Now think about this, if there were any real danger, would she and Chelsea have been allowed to make that trip?
Nitram
(27,942 posts)The odds are you'll never be someplace where that happens. Visiting Bosnia, the landing was the one point of vulnerability on their trip. I respect Hillary for taking her daughter, just as I don't blame my father for taking his family to live in"dangerous" places. I get it. You won't give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Will you feel the same about Bernie when someone comes up with an exaggeration he made that benefited him politically?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)There is a big difference between moving your family to live with you and taking a day trip. No I will not give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. If, against all available evidence, her version of the story is true then Hillary unnecessarily placed herself and her daughter in danger for a day trip.
And again, if there were any real danger neither she nor Chelsea would have been allowed to make that trip. What function could she have served to merit the risk? None.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She LiED about thngs that were so easy to prove as lies that she looks incompetent at best. I mean, she KNEW there was video of the greeting ceremony at the airport, she didn't have to run ducking sniper fire. That was purely a self inflicted wound, and believe me the GOP will run the pair of videos side by side in an ad, showing her to be a liar. One where she claims sniper fire, the other of the event at the airport with her smiling and being handed flowers by a little girl.
Hillary's own words will take her down in the general, if she is our nominee.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)
xocet
(4,442 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts) Nitram
(27,942 posts)Has anyone said Clinton was "totally honest" about the event?
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Somehow, you believe that saying the exact opposite of what happened is just a little off totally honest.
It's ok to stand behind a politician and support them. It's another to whitewash the facts of particular events.
xocet
(4,442 posts)should not be confused with a straw man.
Damn news footage,.....always ruining a good lie!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)ass on it.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Bingo!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Stop lying and hope people will forget the past?
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)likely running against a GOP maniac
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Again: How does SHE -- not depending on others who unlike her have a reputation for telling the truth like Bernie -- change pubic opinion that anything coming out of her mouth is basically a lie and she cannot be trusted?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Those polls of course are gospel.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Remember, polls mean everything if they show Hillary leading.
katsy
(4,246 posts)I view all of our candidates as people of integrity. Hillary has made missteps. I don't agree with all of her positions or votes like the IWR. But if I agree with Bernie 90% of the time I pretty much am in line with Hillary and MOM just a few points less. I'm proud of our candidates.
The rw lunatics have been slamming Hillary with this dishonest meme forever. Since she was First Lady. They are relentless. Yes, they have succeeded nominally to paint her as dishonest. The general electorate feeds on sound bites and lies are not addressed by the media. I understand this.
But what is a testament to her strength is that despite all rw slams, Hillary, IMO, will beat their best and be a good president. I will still not agree with all her positions. But I'm going to cut this lady, who happens to be a good role model for my daughter and women everywhere, a break.
Hillary is certainly more honest and has more integrity than anyone in that poll save Bernie. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
Nitram
(27,942 posts)That is exactly how I view Clinton. I like both candidates, and will happily vote for the one that wins the nomination.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)I support Bernie, but for republicans to say that Hillary is a liar? more big of a liar than Ted Fucking Cruz?
I mean, give me a fucking break.
I really don't think she lies more or less than any other average politician. Not to mention those clowns on the republican side.
My problem with Hillary is not that she's a "liar" as republicans have been saying all these years, but that she doesn't seem to have core values or principles that she sticks by no matter what.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)And yet . . . nothing from the MSM. Had those numbers been reversed and Bernie had the high negatives, it would be front-page news and Bernie would be declared dead in the water.
Botany
(77,574 posts)codswallop
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: cods·wal·lop
Pronunciation: /ˈkädzˌwäləp/
Definition of codswallop in English:
noun
British informal
Nonsense.
********
Well people should not trust her because she killed Vince Foster to cover up the cocaine
she and Bill were flying into their base on the Whitewater river and that goes to show that
her private email account w/its secret server was getting real time twitter feeds from her
cloud based Benghazi account.
The "you can't trust Hillary" meme has been sold and pushed by the right wing and their
media lap dogs for years.
Segami
(14,923 posts) Hepburn
(21,054 posts)...you can see from the responses many appear to be trying to get around her falsehoods instead of admitting the truth -- she is not seen as trustworthy.
JMHO
peacebird
(14,195 posts)There is video of her making that claim. There is also video of the actual event at the airport showing Hillary smiling as she takes flowers from a little girl.
Self inflicted wound caused by her LYING.
MineralMan
(151,430 posts)on honesty and trustworthiness. At this point, we're still in primary season, if I haven't missed something.
Any time you bring Republicans into questions like this, Hillary will have high negatives.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Independent voters is not included in any polling and yet their numbers exceed that of either the Democrats or Republicans.
The good news for Sanders is to be found in what the pollsters actually demonstrate to be true about his electability. The conventional opinion of Democrats is proven to be wrong by evidence from the direct match-ups of each of the two Democrats against each of the four Republican contenders who have more than single digit support. The Q-Poll findings: "Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson,and Cruz]." Against each of the latter three, Sanders' winning margin exceeds Clinton's by 2%, 3% and 5% respectively.
It thus appears that Democratic voters are not just misinformed, but grossly misinformed, about whether Clinton or Sanders would do better against Republicans. Comparing the margin of support among Democrats for Clinton over Sanders (30%) with the even larger 38% margin of polled Democrats who erroneously rank Clinton as a more electable candidate than Sanders suggests the possibility that their grossly erroneous belief may well account for much of their lopsided preference for Clinton.
Maybe not all Clinton supporters are using electability as their main criterion for preferring her in opinion polls. After all, someone may have genuine enthusiasm for her. But it would be useful for these grossly misled Democrats when casting their primary votes over the next several months to consider the reason why Sanders' outperforms Clinton against Republicans. They should remember that it is independent voters, not party loyalists, who generally determine the outcome of typically close general elections. Some current polling shows Clinton finishing only within the margin of error in Republican matchups. If Democrats really want to risk losing the 2016 election to a Republican they should by all means choose a candidate that Independents reject. The Q-Poll shows Clinton is just the right candidate for that job.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34013-who-s-spoiling-now-the-sanders-polling-anomaly
jeff47
(26,549 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Then again most politicians are.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I've been saying for months and months...my neighbors and multiple co-workers cannot stand her...and "don't trust her" has been a common theme.
No more Clintons.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)Hillary and Bernie's marks and how they fare among respective voting blocs? ....kinda guessed.
And I guess Marco Rubio and Ben Carson are most trustworthy on that side? But I wonder how Kasich would have done. He might have done better than those two on this instance.
Faux pas
(16,440 posts)Not. 
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Two principles, one negative, dark, and feminine (yin) and one positive, bright, and masculine (yang) whose interaction influences the destinies of creatures and things.
George II
(67,782 posts)....all summer and fall - "nobody knows him - wait until people get to know him". Would that apply here, too?
Note that only 5% of republicans didn't have an opinion about Clinton but 28% didn't have an opinion about Sanders, and Independent no opinion were 20% and 39%.
Also the numbers for both Clinton and Sanders among Democrats are pretty similar.
One has to go beyond the pretty graph.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Any poll that equates Clinton's perceived dishonesty with that of any Republican candidate has been pre-skewed.
It's bullshit, but it's also Mission Accomplished.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)HRC's problem is outside the party. That will take some fixing.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)the bull shit Hillary scandals have had.
Small minds never follow the whole story to the end.
I am sure even though there is no evidence to back it up people think Hillary is dishonest concerning her emails as SOS.
The most troubling thing for her opposition I think is the fact that in desperation they hank their hat on something the majority of Dems care little about as evidenced by recent polls.
George II
(67,782 posts)Why did you?
Segami
(14,923 posts)NOT HONEST = DISHONEST
NOT TRUSTWORTHY = UNTRUSTWORTHY
Can you tell me what else could 'NOT HONEST' and 'NOT TRUSTWORTHY' mean?
George II
(67,782 posts)
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)With NOT HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY numbers like that, there's no way in hell she wins neither the nomination or the GE. It's not going to happen.
No president in history has ever been elected when that many people didn't trust them or think them honest.
Damn. Those numbers are BAAAAAAAD!
And look what candidate is the MOST HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY - BERNIE, OF COURSE!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Autumn
(48,978 posts)
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)What does it say about our democracy that the two most dishonest and untrustworthy candidates are leading in most polls?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)
Laser102
(816 posts)Fingers in the ears and no longer listening to the town criers.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)They can better control the people with their lies.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)nothing to do with politics it's personal & I think it goes back to Bill's time in the WH.
I think on some level people blame her for Bill's indiscretions & even some of his policies. You see it right here on DU. They lump her right in with Bill.
The Republicans went after her when she was First Lady. She was smeared back then.
When you add in her own career--that's a lot. It's as if she's carrying around shit from two political careers/personal lives/scandals/rumors etc. It's hard enough dealing with one...
It sucks but I think that has a lot to do with it; and it's not fair. Just my opinion...
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts) 
Cary
(11,746 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #96)
Post removed
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
thesquanderer
(13,056 posts)Dems prefer the candidate who will have a rougher time appealing to Independents (and persuadable Republicans) in the general.
Luckily, the Republican candidates are, themselves, a pretty polarizing bunch. Either of the Dems will probably beat the Republican nominee. I think Sanders would have an easier time of it, and would have the potential for greater coattails, but HRC should still be able to win, which is good since it is doubtful that BS will win the nomination.
Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)The most trustworthy guy "can't get elected" or so everyone says. Sheesh.
With Democracy you get the government you deserve.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)fans are aware of.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)No one has ever been so disliked and elected President. Ever.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)If people think she is untrustworthy why is she crushing Bernie? It's probably because she is more qualified than Bernie. I also think the fact that Bernie is a Socialist is why he can't get more traction. I don't think Americans want a trustworthy Socialist for President.
treestar
(82,383 posts)will make Bernie more known and thus attract more votes, the scrutiny would be stronger and things would come out and Bernie would end up just as "dishonest." Same with the R candidates. Each of them is not so much known yet. Hillary has been thoroughly put under the magnifying glass for 2 decades.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)