This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

[BlueMTexpat]

I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest flaw. --Jill Abramson

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

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 would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
...
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.

As for her statements on issues, 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. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

Excellent read!

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[Cha]

2. Not shocking.. it's the other candidate who has a big problem.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. I see too many who

should know better who gleefully carry the GOP's water for it by repeating RW smears against Hillary ... and continuing to promote the stupid email story on DU daily. Even Jill Abramson, who has been tough on Hillary, says this: "Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical." I certainly agree.

Certainly there is an FBI investigation. Hillary is not a target. Comparing her sending material - unclassified at the time and only classified after the fact - with David Petraeus knowingly sharing material - classified at the time of sharing - with his mistress is just another stupid analogy that the RW loves.

One point I have made before is that since Bush II, too many agencies have been classifying material that really has no business being classified - not if we truly have a democracy. All classification rules need review, IMO. I am not alone in that belief.

That said, however, Hillary did not share classified material with anyone at the time it was classified. Period. Enough already.

[UtahLib]

3. Not at all shocking. eom

[DemonGoddess]

4. Not surprised at all