USA Today’s Michael O’Hanlon really wants you to just give her a chance
Don’t believe what you hear about Clinton: Column
As I have watched this presidential race, and the debate over Hillary Clinton ever since the Benghazi tragedy of 2012, I have been disturbed to see a fine American and kindly human dragged so frequently into the mud. To be sure, if you think she’s wrong on the issues, don’t vote for her. But the caricature of her as dishonest, greedy and overly ambitious is unfair and inaccurate.
Or
Anyway, I’m sure it’s also sexxxxxist!
Normally, I wouldn’t write an essay like this. But now, with even Colin Powell adding fuel to the fire through his leaked emails, it’s time for a little balance. Full disclosure: I am a distant friend and minor adviser to Hillary. But I’m not in her inner circle, am not expecting some high-visibility job if she wins the presidency, and am fully aware of her campaign’s substantive flaws — most notably, in my opinion, a failure to articulate a sufficient, cogent and clear plan for the economy. She has some good ideas and would do well as president, I believe, but somehow the package of proposals isn’t coming through very well on the campaign trail. So this is not meant as a purely laudatory or sycophantic column, by any means.
So, she’s also incompetent?
The rest is fawning syncopate yammering, just as you’d expect, ending with
So if you disagree with Clinton’s views, don’t vote for her. However, please think twice before buying into the caricature of her that’s been created by her political foes. When she left the secretary of State position in early 2013 with a 69% favorable rating, they saw that their only hope of beating her in 2016 was to paint her as someone she’s not.
See, it’s not her fault that she’s a total scumbag who trashed those who accused her husband of sexual assault and rape, who turned the other cheek as her husband received oral sex from a 21 year old intern, who treated the Secret Service and everyone else like peasants and with disdain, that she constantly seems to be involved in something shady, she lies so much she can barely keep her lies straight, she lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi, she somehow amassed hundreds of millions while serving in public office, she’s secretive beyond normal political paranoia, making Nixon seem reasonable, she has no regard for national security, she uses her position well beyond normal pay for play, incredible conflicts of interest. Seriously, the list could go on and on, and this is before we get to her awful political positions.
But, see, it’s not her fault. It’s probably your fault. Or talk radio’s fault. Or Fox News. Sorry, Faux News. Or the fault of Drudge. Or bloggers. But, not Hillary’s fault. Never.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Hillary Clinton is as honest as the minute is long!
You know, maybe, maybe! if Mrs Clinton and her campaign were honest, when she received that diagnosis of pneumonia last Friday (Yeah, I believe that one!), and knowing that there had been questions about her health, and knowing that her honesty was being questioned, she had disclosed the diagnosis rather than hiding it, a few people might have seen her as more honest and forthright than she has been pictured.
Why is it that all of Mrs Clinton’s campaign ‘missteps’ have been in the direction of concealment and dishonesty?
Looks like O’Hanlon is looking for a spot in Hillary’s cabinet, which won’t be happening anyway.
And dishonest, greedy and over ambitious are not caricatures, they’re Hillary’s qualities.
What’s ironic is that if she had been honest during her time as SOS and as a candidate, she’d be a shoo-in for the oval office.
Well, the Hag does exhibit a keen fashion sense.
Mr M wrote:
If she had actually been honest, she wouldn’t be Hillary Clinton. Pathological liars simply have to lie. They lie when there’s no need to lie, they lie when there’s no advantage in lying, they lie when the truth won’t hurt them, and getting caught lying will.
Gotta agree Dana. She lies even when telling the truth would be nothing but beneficial to her.
Bill was the same.
Teach both charity Navigator and Charity Watchdog have now given the Vlinton Foundation their highest ratings any comment on that ? Surely you remember that you said that they were corrupt and scandal plagued
John, are you referring to the Charity Navigator that was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative from 2012 to 2014 as reported by AP?
And yes John, The Clinton’s are corrupt with a long long history of scandal.
I know it’s hard but try to keep up, retard.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinton-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KfPtWGir
The Clinton Foundation’s tax returns are available so you don’t have to rely on a charity ratings organization to think for you.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. That is 6.4% of it’s income going to charitable aid. 75% is typical for a good charity.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Oops, sort of a double post by DP and I.
I just don’t get why some people bend over backwards to defend these criminals. Is it because she has a (D) next to her name and therefore must be as honest and giving as Jesus?
Mr Glanton asked:
Not quite: the formulation is that because she is a Democrat, she can do no wrong, regardless of how much wrong she does.
Remember when Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give (Bill Clinton) a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal”? That’s pretty much the attitude of the entire left; if Hillary Clinton told Jeffrey to lick her [insert slang term for the rectum here] for keeping trannies in girls’ bathrooms, he’d do it.
dana,
Just because your wife makes her boyfriends lick her a**hole to get what she wants doesn’t mean Secretary Clinton does. You lick her boyfriends’ bungholes because you enjoy it. To each his own.
What crimes has Secretary Clinton committed? All imaginary on your part? I thought so.
The policies supported by Clinton and the Dems are more in line with what most liberals support. It’s as simple as that.
Trump is clearly unfit to be president yet many Repubs support him. Why? Because they believe his “policy” positions are closer to theirs, I would suppose.
Now it’s revealed that Don Vito Trump illegally used $258,000 of other people’s money donated to his “charity” to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses. People donate to his “charity” – he took that money (none of it his own) and used it to pay other business obligations. Pam Bondi must feel screwed in only getting $25,000 of “charity” money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpfoundation-1040a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Making The Don look even more like a money grubbing, self-absorbed cheapskate, there’s this:
Do any of you have evidence that Secretary Clinton used Clinton Foundation donations to benefit herself? I didn’t think so.
And why is that MYTH that Clinton used charity money for own benefit worse than the FACT that Trump actually did use other people’s money to line his pocket? Anyone? I didn’t think so.
Might start with perjury and lying under oath…
Throw in obstruction of justuce…
Along with destruction of governmental records…
Clinton crimes? Anyone? I didn’t think so.
Run and hide, little guy.
Hey, that is EXACTLY what Don Vito Trump did!
Hey, that is EXACTLY what Don Vito Trump did!
Hey, that is EXACTLY what Don Vito Trump did!
Hey, that is EXACTLY what Don Vito Trump did!
But Hillary is the crook!
Why is the media ignoring Don Vito on this topic?
Wow. Proof that Trump has committed crimes, but nothing on Clinton. Anyone?
Pay to play. The drug companies made millions from their deal with The Clinton Crime Family, even after being banned in the USA.
And this:
One relationship unearthed by the report was the American Indian Foundation, which Clinton co-founded with Indian-American businessmen Rajat Gupta and Vinod Gupta in 2001.
Rajat was convicted of insider trading in 2012 in a sensational trial.
Vinod eventually was forced to resign as CEO and chairman of the company InfoGroup and was fined $9 million in a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. One of the charges stated Vinod had awarded Bill $3.3 million without board approval.