no
Agree, and personally I don’t think it’s a big deal even if she did exaggerate something that really happened, like an impromptu conversation with a recruiter or something. But on the surface, it looks a little like Carson’s West Point story.
The difference is that Clinton has not been campaigning as The One Honest Candidate. (On the Dem side, that’s more Sanders’ thing.)
To whatever extent Hillary’s extraordinary dishonesty is actually a thing and not a right-wing fabrication, she will certainly be the president least likely to get away with being dishonest, perhaps in all of American history, because everyone will be watching her and expecting her to be.
If it was a fabrication, the more liberal elements of the media would call it out as such. Right now, the only people who think she’s not actually dishonest live on discussion boards.
Anyway, her latest is a lie about her biography, since apparently that’s a relevant subject for vetting candidates now:
I only conclude that this is once again the media twisting like a pretzel to sound fair.
COuld not be corroborated. I thought cites were now required for personal biographies?
So, has D’Anconia figured out how to understand the timeline of the Hillary comments?
From the article you linked to:
That’s at least two different contemporaries vouching for the story.
Even though I despise her I think she will get elected.
Then you democrats will have fun trying to defend her like we republicans had to do with Bush.
This:
…does more to refute Hillary’s implications of genuinely wanting to enlist in the Marines to serve her country. She had no intentions of enlisting. She was out to prove a point. That is, assuming the incident took place, which if we’re giving this the Ben Carson scrutiny, we can’t believe unless the corroborating friends were present when the encounter took place. Because that same article says:
So they confirmed that Hillary told them about it.
Interesting that some press has picked this up, I wonder how far they’ll run with it. The WaPo article says the details are fuzzy enough that she is obligated to give an explanation.
This story, in and of itself, is peanuts. But it adds to her track record of difficulty telling the truth.
I don’t see myself defending her about lying to starting a war, nor do I see myself having to defend her for pushing irresponsible tax cuts. I don’t anticipate defending her for sitting on her hands during a natural disaster, either. If she does any of that, I’ll be on her like a chicken on a june bug, but I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
Really that’s the thing.
Hillary already has a perception of being a consummate and skillful politician (along with the usual “how do you tell if a politician is lying …”) baked into her numbers. She wins her support based on the fact that most believe that she actually is an (only) slightly left of center figure who will in fact be quite effective and competent, not because she is the most honest. She wins her support based on the fact that we know that those running against her, with Bernie as the only possible exception, are not only no more honest than she is but insult us by trying to further lie to us that they are. Thus they end up being even less attractive on that score alone. Plus of course to the general electorate the fact that she is not batshit crazy or extreme in either direction.
The GOP candidate cannot win on honesty merely by poking at her perceived dishonesty if they at end of day come off as hypocrites on that score.
“Clinton’s lied too” just won’t make that sale.
Oh right. Hillary will be so perfect.
And this is what I heard when Obama took over. When he started to mess up all the democrats ran away.
Yeah we totally ran away. And yet, if he were able to run for a 3rd term, he would win in a landslide.
You’re misrepresenting a direct quote.
Either you can’t read, or you think we can’t.
Which is it?
I haven’t seen this happen yet, not in any major way. It’s like the right-wingers are all in their own fantasy world where Obama is the Democrats’ Shrub, and the rest of us are out here in reality.
Certainly a lot of them did. The number of Dems running away from Obamacare just last year was pretty appalling, really.
But this, unfortunately, seems to be baked into the party’s DNA. That’s why I frequently call them the Scared Rabbit Party. Half the time, they’re running from their own shadows.
Hillary, at least, knows that running away won’t help.
It isn’t fright, it’s honest difference of opinion, which the Democratic party doesn’t excommunicate you for, unlike the Republican More Conservative, My God, Than Thou lockstep, which has allowed Trump and Carson to not only find purchase but to be nearly ineradicable.
A lot of Democrats are more conservative than I’d like them to be, too. Some of them would be Republicans but for some specific piece of bigotry the modern GOP is wedded to. This means the Democrats look unfocused. That’s understandable when you realize they’re both of America’s rational parties trying to share the same banner.
The latter is certainly true, but sheesh: this was the most defining Dem piece of legislation in decades, and it’s hard to see how this was an honest difference of opinion, given a starting point of, say, being a 1970s-style moderate Republican. Or even a 2000s-style moderate Republican - hi, Mitt! Hell, even the Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that was more or less Obamacare, although it was surely intended at the time as something to throw in the mix to confuse things.
How one could be a Democrat, and not being for doing stuff like this if practical…sorry, does not compute. And this not only practical, but was the most conservative possible way to implement near-universal health care. Fear makes more sense, because this sort of thing happens over and over again. They ran away from Clinton in the 1990s, and they ran way from Obamacare 20 years later, and they ran way from other stuff in between.