It Really Doesn't Matter if Hillary Clinton Is Dishonest: Article from Washington Post
Last edited Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:36 AM - Edit history (1)
When I read this I wondered if they are serious or if this is some snarky political attack.
The actual article from the Washington Post.
Calling someone dishonest is one of the most serious political insults in the United States. The country has been obsessed with its politicians' honesty at least since President George Washington's first biographer popularized the tale of him hacking at the trunk of a cherry tree. "I cannot tell a lie," a young Washington supposedly said when confronted about the damage.
Now, with less than a week until the Iowa caucuses and with Bernie Sanders advancing in the polls, Hillary Clinton still hasn't been able to clear away the accusations of dishonesty that have clouded her campaign. At the Democratic presidential town hall on Monday, a Sanders supporter noted that it's a reason Clinton has struggled to attract young voters: "I've heard from quite a few people my age that they think you're dishonest," he said.
Here's the thing, though: There was no cherry tree. Washington's biographer apparently fabricated it. "The great founding myth of American political integrity, chopping down the cherry tree, is, in fact, itself a lie," said Martin Jay, a historian at the University of California at Berkeley and author of a book called "The Virtues of Mendacity."
is being dishonest about and if they are intentionally being dishonest.
If the dishonesty causes harm to the country or its people I would think
it would matter greatly.
Just my 2 cents.
as possibly the ultimate dishonest act especially considering all the death and destruction that delivered.
It's a hit piece -- the purpose to get its headline on the page.
It reads like a hit piece. Only on everyone. It's worse on Hillary I think. But, it's also a swipe at Sanders it's kind of saying he doesn't really take to change and adjusting his values for the times or something something. And it's taking a swipe at people in general for being idealists and dreamers, because yes we are dreaming if we expect TPTB to be honest and that goes for politicians too. And something about people being normally selfless is supposed to be bad cuz emotions n chit. We should be going for the cold calculating liars because they evolve depending on what their handlers want or something something.
I don't know what the purpose was supposed to be, but it looked like an admission that the author thinks Hillary is dishonest. And something about "Hey kid, jus let me tell you like it is. If you go about your life being a nice person and being honest the world is gonna eat ya alive."
It's not a glowing recommendation of Hillary that is for sure. If it's supposed to be then it fell far short. If it's supposed to be slamming Bernie I am not sure what the slam is, is he that innocent kid that needs to be told to be a bit more careful with the truth?
I am going with I think it was supposed to be telling us we are too idealistic if we insist that we want honesty from politicians. And that we are too altruistic and we have stars in our eyes if we expect change or something.
I remember when a lot of Republicans weren't that way. But, around 2009 a lot of decent Republicans ran away from the insane wing of the party and now the rabid RW Randians are taking over.
Just trying to please and displease everyone at once and in the process the writer feels above it all, somehow superior. Just an egotistical pleasure for the author of the article.
The reasons people feel that Bernie is honest and that Hillary is dishonest are that 1) Bernie held the right and fair opinions about all these issues from the beginning, from the time his positions on the issues are known and has, thus, been consistently correct on those issues in the views of the voters, and 2) Hillary has changed her mind on things like gay marriage and the TPP and her explanations for those changes are flimsy, unbelievably superficial. She does not and at this point it is too late for her to explain what caused her to change her mind on the TPP very well. The Iraq War is the worst example of an issue on which she made a horrible decision, took an obviously wrong stance and then later has tried to walk that bad decision back.
Hey, Sanders has good judgment. Hillary doesn't.
Sanders CAN BE HONEST and DOESN'T HAVE TO CHANGE HIS MIND BECAUSE HIS INITIAL THOUGHTS AND DECISIONS ARE GOOD.
Hillary's real problem, the reason people call her dishonest, is that she makes bad decisions about the issues over and over and then, when she suddenly wakes up and realizes how wrong her initial decisions were, changes and tries to make the right, now more popular decision.
Hillary is worse than dishonest. She has poor judgment. I don't want to say she is unintelligent because I'm sure she had great grades in school, but . . . . . . I will say that Bernie is really, really, really, really smart.
And on top of it, Bernie has the courage to go against the crowd. He has an instinct for what is right, and he follows that instinct and says what he thinks.
I do think that Bernie is just more brilliant than Hillary. He adds that instinct to his intelligence, and we need that in this country.
Bernie is a deliberative thinker. He just really thinks things through and also has that instinct, educated by a moral sense that is unusual, for knowing what is true and right. I'm sure he makes mistakes, lots of them, but not as many as Hillary.
NYT, July 11: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us/the-best-way-to-vilify-clinton-gop-spends-heavily-to-test-it.html?_r=0
That's a lot of mud over the last quarter century and some if it was bound to stick. Hillary doesn't have Bill's teflon which is to say she's not a born raconteur (aka bullshitter) and the VRWC figured out long ago that that makes her vulnerable on the issue. Just my $0.02.
and he appointed as publisher, Fredrick J. Ryan, sometimes called Ronald Reagan's number one fan.
She is, after all, the Wall Street candidate.
Or as some of us would say, a DINO.
your head in any sense of the words; negotiation or compromise.
Bernie has been extremely successful in the Congress getting both sides to come together and in having his amendments passed much more so than Hillary.
Bernie knows how to compromise, from a position of strength.
Furthermore this post article presupposes that since all politicians must lie, it undermines any rational or logical way for the American People to use their heads in making deliberations as whom to support.
Thanks for the thread, Todays_Illusion.
since the Republicans are such constant fibbers they want to stop it being an issue or something?
Hmmm? IMO, the only real honesty issue here is lack of it. Smears aimed at Bernie bad. Smears aimed at Hillary good.
right before Iowa.
Maybe wonder about the "why" of that? Why would the owner of the Washington Post, libertarian-leaning megabillionaire Jeff Bezos (#4 on Forbes list), prefer a Republican president? From Alternet:
"Like so many tech billionaires, Bezos has been attracted to right-libertarian politicsmeaning socially liberal, but in favor of business and privatization. ...
But what has not made news is Bezos careful activism on behalf of big business and some of the richest Americans. ... "
His company Amazon was a member of ALEC (!!!) until he was outed and embarrassed into severing the connection with an organization dedicated to corrupting democracy.
But hey, I'm guessing Bezos at least is pleased with all those who help him out. As for what you get in return? Let's just hope it's not a Republican president.
I have clearly stated otherwise.
Not everything boils down to persons.
OUR honesty matters too.
How can anyone expect politicians to be honest if the best way to get elected is to feed people the lies they want to hear?
serious and is a much worse conclusion.
1. Her vote to go to war in Iraq
2. The mess she left in Libya
3. The great campaign she ran and lost in 2008.
4. Her leadership in flubbing Healthcare in 1993.
What has she ever done effectively except enriching herself?
It's less about telling the truth and more about morality and moral judgment. Lying is morally wrong and when we accept, allow, encourage or reward it, we've gone astray. When the majority of the country has so little influence on legislation, it no longer functions as a democracy. We need to trust our representative government again and choosing a known liar (to an extreme in this case) is never going to work.
If we are to choose a representative of most of America, that person has to be consistent. Otherwise, there's no trust.
Getting to the Presidency is her goal and as Amy Poehler satirized her on SNL she has been running for it like a Terminator damn near forever.
See this for how close they are
And it's not like it matters, right-wing libertarians aren't going to be fans of Bernie's either. Either way, the Washington Post has been insanely anti Bernie this whole primary.
Reagan man, Fredrick J. Ryan as publisher. To me the Republican party is now 100% libertarian thanks to the efforts and money from the Kochs and friends. And the Democratic are being gobbled up as well by those stealthier libertarians like the the Third Wau and the ones running Democracy Alliance and that is our problem.
honesty in a president is overrated? Something a bit haywire with that logic.
It isn't that she "reconsiders her positions." Or that she compromises. It's that she lies about her positions, then lies about why she "changed her mind."
Who cares about whether GW cut down the cherry tree. People want a President they can trust. That's HRC's biggest problem.
Why anyone would trust an opportunistic liar is a mystery to me.
the original idea and statement existed. I have never been a Hillary Clinton supporter, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and don't really pay that much attention to Hillary I have always considered her to be too conservative.