+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy (/thread-102.html)
Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Eric the Green - 05-16-2016
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson
This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
![[Image: Jill-Abramson-L.png?w=300&q=55&auto=form...7036763f58]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/contributor/2016/2/10/1455116166093/Jill-Abramson-L.png?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=5813b1ae7335ae866d760d7036763f58)
Jill Abramson
I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest fla
It’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”
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.
![[Image: 4096.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f...224408d237]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/74a9e29df562cfc4c176ed81fd4b570c8535569a/0_76_4096_2458/master/4096.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=b7f115002a96b0de36be72224408d237)
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. 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.
The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.
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, 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, 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%).
I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.
The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?
Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?
Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.
These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.
Play
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.
Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.
It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Odin - 05-16-2016
LOL, OK, yeah, sure. This is a good case of "thou doth protest too much".
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Eric the Green - 05-16-2016
Protest is needed. Trump would be a disaster. It's time the truth was told.
So, this article needs to be available in the new forum. It's not even in the archive, and the old forum is now gone.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Kinser79 - 05-16-2016
You know...every time I see The Guardian listed as a source I know I can disregard it as that is little more than a Regressive Left rag that isn't even fit for use in an outhouse.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Eric the Green - 05-16-2016
I do think she needs to burnish her image as honest and trustworthy to win. I sent an email on her campaign page. You never know, maybe someone will read it. I advised her to release the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Kinser79 - 05-17-2016
(05-16-2016, 10:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do think she needs to burnish her image as honest and trustworthy to win. I sent an email on her campaign page. You never know, maybe someone will read it. I advised her to release the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches.
You can polish a turd until it shines like a gemstone. Unfortunately it remains a turd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Galen - 05-17-2016
As usual Eric the Obtuse is overlooking that little FBI investigation. It doesn't look like that is going away any time soon.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Galen - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 03:50 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hillary honest and trustworthy? Not the two words that come to mind when I think of her. The title made me laugh though. The only one who seems to at least show consistency is Bernie.
He is that, pity that he is an economic illiterate.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Odin - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 03:50 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hillary honest and trustworthy? Not the two words that come to mind when I think of her. The title made me laugh though. The only one who seems to at least show consistency is Bernie.
She's a female Nixon.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - playwrite - 05-17-2016
(05-16-2016, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson
This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest...
Nice try Eric, but as you can see, this is just bait for those with the Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome (CHDS).
From decades of political coverage, Abramson sets out several benchmarks for "fundamentally honest" including a particular take on a politician's "flip flopping" on issues. What we get from the CHDS chorus is not a single argument against either the benchmarks or how Clinton measures up to them. Instead, we get dismissing the claim out of hand, mindless repeating of Right wingnut memes (e.g. emails!, Benghazi! Mufasa!) and the misogynist-taint of pointing out she's female.
Doesn't look like the posters who have migrated from the old forums decided to raise their old game play and we should expect just more of the same crapola.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Bronco80 - 05-17-2016
Clinton may not be honest and trustworthy, but she'd still be a better president than Trump. Articles like this aren't going to sway me much.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Eric the Green - 05-17-2016
(05-16-2016, 10:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do think she needs to burnish her image as honest and trustworthy to win. I sent an email on her campaign page. You never know, maybe someone will read it. I advised her to release the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches.
And that's something any of us can do; contact her and advise her to do this.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Kinser79 - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 07:33 AM)Odin Wrote:(05-17-2016, 03:50 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hillary honest and trustworthy? Not the two words that come to mind when I think of her. The title made me laugh though. The only one who seems to at least show consistency is Bernie.
She's a female Nixon.
HRC doesn't have the Credibility of Tricky Dick. He managed to be believable at lest some of the time.
(05-17-2016, 10:24 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: Clinton may not be honest and trustworthy, but she'd still be a better president than Trump. Articles like this aren't going to sway me much.
They certainly haven't swayed me. Quite the opposite. Anyone who has to have articles written about how honest they are probably isn't all that honest. "You shall know them by their fruits...."
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Galen - 05-18-2016
(05-17-2016, 02:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: HRC doesn't have the Credibility of Tricky Dick. He managed to be believable at lest some of the time.
He was also had limits. I don't remember any of his plumbers ending up like Vince Foster.
(05-17-2016, 02:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-17-2016, 10:24 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: Clinton may not be honest and trustworthy, but she'd still be a better president than Trump. Articles like this aren't going to sway me much.
They certainly haven't swayed me. Quite the opposite. Anyone who has to have articles written about how honest they are probably isn't all that honest. "You shall know them by their fruits...."
That is the only way to be confident in anyone's character.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Kinser79 - 05-18-2016
I'm not sure how much I believe the conspiracy theory surrounding Vince Foster. Suicides are usually investigated as homicides by the police so a lack of evidence to bring charges of murder on anyone else makes the claim that the Clintons had him murdered dubious. Perfect crimes do not exist, evidence is always left behind.
I find that with few exceptions those who are surrounded by crime, vice and scandal are usually involved in it themselves. I don't remember a single year passing without Bill, or Hillary, or both NOT being involved in some sort of controversy so I have every expectation that they cause at least some of it themselves.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - pbrower2a - 05-18-2016
Barack Obama has spoiled us -- no scandals.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Cynic Hero '86 - 05-18-2016
The notion that the Hildebeast is honest and trustworthy is laughable.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Galen - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 04:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm not sure how much I believe the conspiracy theory surrounding Vince Foster. Suicides are usually investigated as homicides by the police so a lack of evidence to bring charges of murder on anyone else makes the claim that the Clintons had him murdered dubious. Perfect crimes do not exist, evidence is always left behind.
There is enough inconsistency to make me suspicious. For one thing anyone who sucks on a 38 leaves a big mess and as I recall one of the first witnesses on the scene noted how neat the crime scene was.
(05-18-2016, 04:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find that with few exceptions those who are surrounded by crime, vice and scandal are usually involved in it themselves. I don't remember a single year passing without Bill, or Hillary, or both NOT being involved in some sort of controversy so I have every expectation that they cause at least some of it themselves.
Hard to argue with that conclusion. The two of them have been caught lying so often its hard to tell if they even understand the concept of truth.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - Kinser79 - 05-18-2016
I think both would try to argue the definition of truth, much like Bill once tried to argue the definition of the word 'is'.
RE: Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy - playwrite - 05-18-2016
For those interested in amygdala-dominated 'thinking,' here we have several posters providing excellent examples.
Note again that the Abramson piece provides benchmarks for a politician's honesty and then measures Clinton against those benchmarks. Notice how none of posters above disagreeing with Abramson's conclusion make any factual or logical counter argument but just conjecture that she's not only wrong but humorously wrong, because, well, gut feelings, inconsistencies (because Faux News said so!), misogyny, etc - that's straight cerebral lobe hijacking by these posters' more reptilian brain part - their amygdala. Of particular note, observe the reinforcing of their dribble that provides the echo chamber that the amygdala-dominated sheeple masters can count on.
In the meantime, talking about the cerebral lobe impaired, we have the Benghazi Committee Chairman, Trey Gowdy, admitting that the most fundamental tenet underpinning the case against Clinton is not reality (i.e., completely batshXt crazy) -
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/17/benghazi-chairman-contradicts-fox-report-admits-military-could-not-have-saved-lives-benghazi-attack/210468
Quote:Benghazi Chairman Contradicts Fox Report, Admits Military Could Not Have Saved Lives In Benghazi Attack
TREY GOWDY: Dana Chipman is an honorable, good man. He served this country with great distinction and he served our committee with great distinction. That was a transcript from one question he asked Leon Panetta and Jeremy Bash. When you see the full transcript -- and you will -- then you will see that what Dana was talking about was a very small point. The posture of the troops, the order that was given by Panetta and the president, how that order was received -- all of that is what we want to ask people about. Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there’s any issue with respect to that -- they couldn’t. The next question is, why could you not? Why were you not positioned to do it?”
Note, Growdy now trying to move the goalpost to why there was no positioning in advance so that there could have been a response. Let's hope Growdy goes there so that he can explain his full Committee Chair's being so batshXt crazy gleeful about cutting the funding for security at Benghazi and other foreign stations -
Now do we get our $22 million back the government has spent on this witch hunt -
http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/
- or do we just move onto the next "Clinton lie" that the elites feed their amygdala-dominated sheeple?
Maybe a couple of the amygdala-dominate that post their dribble here can tell us?