The claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. –AndrewTobias.com
We are told by Andrew Tobias that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season, according to Politifact.
Tobias is both a Democrat and a defender of Hillary Clinton. He’s also a well-known writer who once was Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.
His recent article is not the only one offering Hillary revisionism. There are actually a number of articles circulating about Hillary that emphasize her honesty, presumably as a rebuttal to Donald Trump who has labeled her “Crooked Hillary.”
One can speculate this is spontaneous, or one can believe that the Hillary campaign itself may be behind this sudden “Uncrooked Hillary” meme.
Tobias reminds us in the same article, that a more adversarial writer, Jill Abramson – an executive editor of the New York Times, came to similar conclusions.
He quotes her:
“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.” . . .
Tobias blames former New York Times conservative columnist William Safire for setting off suspicion of Hillary back in the 1990s when he wrote “a scathing and now-famous essay about the Clinton scandal, Whitewater, entitled, ‘Blizzard of Lies’.
Tobias adds that there was already a predilection to dislike Hillary among conservatives because “she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage.”
But the real reason people want to accept her crookedness, he continues, is because she comes across to people as a “self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior.”
It wasn’t any evidence of dishonesty that turned people against her so much as her attitude. She was “intolerably smug.”
Is this true? The problem with Hillary is that she seems willing to exploit the system any way she can to gain her objectives. You can see a list of some Clinton scandals HERE.
It is probably not “smugness” that bothers people about Hillary so much as an aura of fanaticism.
Certainly she exploits the system for personal gain but she also seems a good deal more ideological than her husband. This is the same combination of traits in other leaders that has proven disastrous to society.
The combination of ruthlessness and fanaticism is often toxic to open societies. It may result in a considerable accumulation of state power if she becomes president.
The mostly unspoken worry is so much power in the hands of the Clintons, once again, could lead to a good deal more authoritarianism and maybe even a change in the way Americans are governed.
Hillary is very obviously someone who enjoys wielding power and is not afraid to use it, mostly behind the scenes.
Conclusion: The combination of Hillary’s personalty traits seem to hint strongly at sociopathic tendencies, as we suggested previously. This is far more worrisome than “crookedness.”