A Gallup poll that came out last Tuesday reveals something that most Americans already knew: they don’t know whether Hillary Clinton is a trustworthy person.
It’s here at their website, comparing American respondents’ opinions on the three remaining presidential candidates. Of the three only Hillary Clinton has fewer people rating her as honest and trustworthy than rate her otherwise. Sixty-seven percent of respondents see John McCain as a straight shooter, vs 27% not trusting him. This is closely shadowed by Obama’s rating over the same question by 63% favorable to 29% unfavorable. Clinton’s score: 44% favorable and 53% unfavorable.
Note also that the undecideds are 6% for McCain, 8% for Obama, but 3% for Clinton.
Now this goes beyond all the rule changing we keep hearing coming from the Clinton campaign. First that all the Florida and Michigan votes must count even though these votes are tainted by events coming on the heels of the DNC rules that excluded their delegates from the national convention. And now most recently that a far better statistic for superdelegates to decide upon is how many electoral votes each has won so far.
Clinton claims she has won 219 electoral votes, where Obama has gained only 202. This statistic, they are now saying, points to how much more electable Hillary Clinton is than Barack Obama.
In reality, Hillary Clinton has won zero (0) electoral votes. So has Obama. Electoral votes are cast between two candidtates from two parties, not the same one unless John McCain wants to throw in the towel now. It is ludicrous to say that the states Clinton won will not also be won by Obama in November. It is also ludicrous to count states that will inevitably go for McCain. The reasoning is specious and suspect.
I wouldn’t trust someone who gave me that line of reasoning with holding my place in line at the movies.
And now we are all treated, by the news media and You Tube, to the latest of Hillary Clinton’s whoppers. It’s that Bosnia trip again. Her recounting of it, always so consistent in the past, and tracking right along to what she wrote in her book, Living History has always gone something like this:
“Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find”.
That can all be checked, you know, especially when there are so many eye witnesses. And on that incident, one that Clinton has recounted the same way time and time again, she recently added some twists that weren’t part of the narrative before.
And it makes her look really, really bad.
From You Tube:
Now this isn’t someone else spouting off opinions about things, someone that Barack Obama hasn’t any control over, someone who has no control over Barack Obama, these are the actual words of someone who wants to be president.
Words that turned out to be, in the words of her spin doctor, Howard Wolfson, not lies, not fibs, whoppers or gross exaggerations of the truth, none of that. “She misspoke,” said Wolfson.
Quite frankly, if there are those among us who are starting to wonder about these things, as I am, and haven’t voted in a primary yet, as I have, it is this sort of thing that I would be concentrating on: who you can trust to tell you the truth. God knows we've had enough of lies from the Executive Branch.
And if there are those who are starting to wonder about these things, and have already voted for Clinton in a primary, well maybe it’s time to wonder if you “misvoted”.