EAllusion wrote:A very large % of the general public considers Clinton deceptive and untrustworthy. I'm one of those people. However, I'm positive that the reasons I am suspicious of Clinton don't match up with the average person's thoughts. I think the general public is just vaguely aware that Clinton has a reputation for dishonesty (in part inherited from her slick husband) and is associated with scandal. The opinions of people like me influence the opinions of people like them. I think if you ask people why they think Clinton is dishonest, aside from incoherent bluffing, you'll probably get a half-informed reference to the most recent email scandal or Benghazi. I'm skeptical more than 1 in 10 people can accurately describe what occurred in the Whitewater scandal, for example. Most people simply do not remember "vast right-wing conspiracy" Clinton. All that lingers is a sense that she's dishonest. Survey after survey indicates this is the level of memory and knowledge most people operate on.
If you follow the yahoo news feed or anything like that, you'll notice that every week there are conservative publications introducing a new scandal or new development in scandal associated with Clinton. And almost all of it is misleading at best and straight lies at worst. This is just fuel for the fire of the strategy against Clinton that seems to work. This is how negative campaigning at its finest works, in fact. You take a character flaw the public will buy into and magnify it with a cloud of doubt. And this is just one avenue of attack that has been relentless against Clinton this entire campaign.
Sanders hasn't had anything like this happen to him. He has vulnerabilities. There's clearly a calculation out there to avoid it.
The Clinton's lost money on their Whitewater deal. Not even Ken Star could find anything illegal there.
The losing of money had nothing to do with whether unethical or illegal behavior occurred. That said my point was that things like Whitewater, filegate, travelgate, etc. contribute to the cloud of dishonesty around the Clinton's even though I doubt very many people could explain them if asked on the street. I don't think it matters if they are legit or not. For what it is worth, my sense of Clintonian dishonesty comes from other things.
Most people simply do not remember "vast right-wing conspiracy" Clinton.
Do you think Hillary knew her husband Bill Clinton had lied under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky when she was claiming that the case was all a vast right wing conspiracy witch hunt?
I remember when she responded to the Gennifer Flowers adultery allegation during the 92 presidential campaign by claiming, "GHWB had an affair." Did she know about Bill Clinton's adulterous relationships at that time as well?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Most people simply do not remember "vast right-wing conspiracy" Clinton.
Do you think Hillary knew her husband Bill Clinton had lied under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky when she was claiming that the case was all a vast right wing conspiracy witch hunt?
I remember when she responded to the Gennifer Flowers adultery allegation during the 92 presidential campaign by claiming, "GHWB had an affair." Did she know about Bill Clinton's adulterous relationships at that time as well?
Well, she did say he was a hard dog to keep on the porch.
Most people simply do not remember "vast right-wing conspiracy" Clinton.
Do you think Hillary knew her husband Bill Clinton had lied under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky when she was claiming that the case was all a vast right wing conspiracy witch hunt?
I can't see how that would effect her ability to be a good President, though.
Can you see how voters might view her as less than honest?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I can't see how that would effect her ability to be a good President, though.
Can you see how voters might view her as less than honest?
I know some do. I don't really understand it, though. Trump fibs or changes his story every five minutes, but that gets a pass. Here's just the latest:
I know some do. I don't really understand it, though.
So you don't consider Hillary to be less than honest?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Quasimodo wrote:I know some do. I don't really understand it, though. Trump fibs or changes his story every five minutes, but that gets a pass. Here's just the latest:
Trump engages in such transparent BSing nearly every time he opens his mouth that I think he gets a relative pass because it is expected of him. The attitude is, "Well, what do you expect? That's Trump." I think lowered expectation effect is dangerous, but it is what it is. It's basically what Fox News gets away with writ small into the persona of one political figure.
I know some do. I don't really understand it, though.
So you don't consider Hillary to be less than honest?
I think she is just as honest as any politician running for office. I think Bernie is, too. Trump, on the other hand has set a new, very low bar for honesty and credibility in a candidate. A truly scary prospect.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.