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.
I have friends who won’t vote for Hillary Clinton. It’s not that they don’t support her policy positions- most absolutely do…though they’d be hard-pressed to admit it. It’s that they possess a visceral disdain for her that seems to override any other consideration. They won’t vote for her because they can’t stand her; what’s surprising is that many can’t clearly elucidate the reasons for their active dislike.
Few women in public life have been scrutinized, parsed, fact-checked, and subjected to all manner of unsubstantiated rumor, innuendo, and blatant, mean-spirited, highly personal attacks as Hillary Clinton. Many Americans see her as fundamentally dishonest…though when pushed, they very often are unable to be specific about what it is she’s lied about. They just know she’s an inveterate liar.
Here’s the thing, though: Hillary Clinton truly isn’t fundamentally dishonest.
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.
How is it that so many Americans can believe that someone whose every word, thought, and move is parsed to the nth degree, every letter evaluated and re-evaluated in order that we might pass judgment on Clinton’s veracity? Do people not believe that she’s aware that, given the scrutiny she faces 24/7/365, she simply can’t afford to be dishonest?
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.
I find it interesting that so much energy and effort has been focused on Clinton’s alleged dishonesty, while Cruz and Trump are given a free pass by the media and the general public…not that there’s a double standard or anything.
Right.
So Clinton hasn’t been an absolute open book about every aspect of her life. I think it’s understandable that she might bristle at being expected to reveal every detail about every personal, professional, and political act or decision. This is especially true when you examine the fact that it’s unlikely a male candidate would be held to the same standards.
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 appears to distrust the press intensely…and who could blame her? How many journalists have attempted to make a name for themselves at her expense? How many times has she been the target of cheap, poorly sourced, and factually inaccurate smear campaigns (BENGHAZI!!!!)? It seems not at all unreasonable for someone in her position to distrust the press, many of whom have diligently endeavored to destroy her personally and politically.
Over time, she’s switched some of her positions (same-sex marriage, f’rinstance) and she occasionally shades the truth. This only proves that she’s evolved over time and is willing to re-evaluate her convictions as new information becomes available. Only crass ideologues are inflexibly locked into one position forever and ever, Amen.
Hillary Clinton is a politician- a crafty, experienced, and cautious one, to be certain- who understands that the intense scrutiny she faces day in and day out means she can’t afford the luxury of dishonesty. Even if she was tempted to lie, she knows that every word issuing from her lips is subjected to intense, sometimes highly ideological fact checking on multiple fronts.
I’m not a Clinton supporter, not by a long shot. I firmly support Bernie Sanders, but more than that I believe in fair play. Hillary Clinton has been subjected to more dirty tricks and inside baseball than any other public figure in my lifetime. She may be many things, but dishonest isn’t to be found on that list. I find it rather sad that so many Americans have been propagandized into believing otherwise; I’d have thought we were smarter than that.
