Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Hillary Clinton caught in more lies

By
December 5, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, like the President she wants so desperately to replace, is getting caught in too many lies.

Her campaign can’t even be honest about how many endorsements its gets from from black ministers.

To be fair, politicians have longed stretched the truth in campaign propaganda but Clinton leads a long list of Democratic contenders who claim they will restore honesty and integrity to a White House where President George W. Bush has destroyed credibility and flushed it down the toilet.

And Clinton has a special problem: Her husband’s eight years in office were hardly monuments to honesty or integrity. He lied to the American public about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, he lied about his involvement in various political scandals and he concealed White House actions with a zeal for secrecy that stood as the benchmark until the Bush Administration eclipsed it.

Hillary faces her own problems with credibility, dating back to those mysterious missing law firm files during the Whitewater investigation and more recent screwups like planting questions at her own press conferences.

Now comes a credibility gap on something as simple as her endorsement list.

Reports The Associated Press:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s support from South Carolina’s black religious leaders may not be quite as extensive as her campaign suggests.

Clinton got a boost last week when she shared a South Carolina stage with dozens of supporters, accepting what organizers said were endorsements from nearly 90 ministers in the state. But an Associated Press review of an endorsement list supplied by the New York senator’s campaign found that some of the backers were affiliated with religious ministries and outreach groups rather than churches, some were wives of ministers, two were church elders and at least two were not members of the churches listed beside their names.

All told, about 50 different groups were represented, rather than more than 80 congregations as initially implied, the review found.

The AP is conducted similar reviews on endorsement claims by other candidates, including Clinton’s closest challenger, Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton’s campaign claims the list was never intended to represent different congregations and her supporters say the discrepancies are no big deal, just as those who defend her husband’s actions in the White House say lying about a sexual dalliance is not as big a crime as lying to justify a war.

But such relative justifications may not play well with voters in a campaign where honesty and credibility are key issues.

8 Responses to Hillary Clinton caught in more lies

  1. Sandra Price

    December 5, 2007 at 6:34 am

    This should not be a shock to anyone who was politically active during the Clinton Terms. The key issues are supposed to be open and honest government changes; but how can anyone expect these changes from a Clinton?

  2. pondering_it_all

    December 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    What a hack article! Did anybody bother to read the original AP story? The Clinton campaign simply reported on the contents of the sign-in sheets at an endorsement event. As they investigated the contents of those sheets (filled in by attendees, not campaign workers) they revised the report.

    Somehow the fact that some of the endorsements came from outreach ministries or church elders makes Hillary a liar? Give me a break!

    Why bother with any “story” at all. Just print articles that consist of:
    “I hate the Clintons.”
    “I hate the Clintons.”
    “I hate the Clintons.”
    repeated 100 times.

    There are real substantive stories that you can write about Hillary’s votes and platform.

  3. Siannan

    December 5, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    I’m getting a bit tired of the obvious, consistently biased reporting about Hillary. If the same story were printed about Obama or Edwards, the headline would read “Large Contingent of Church Attendees Support (Obama or Edwards) select candidate of choice”. If Hillary drops three points in the polls the headlines read “Hillary Slides into the Basement”, but if Obama or Edwards has a three point drop, the headline might say “Obama/Edwards Experience a Slight Three Point Drop”.

    This is nonsense. They are doing a Al Gore on her with every story they print, and they’re doing it just because she’s Hillary, not because she deserves it. This is pure, plain BS. I’m not saying I necessarily support the woman, just that what I see in reporting about her is plainly unfair.

  4. jgw

    December 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Just another thing I don’t get. I live in Washington state. Our supreme court has ruled that its ok for politicians to lie. This was backed up with a very similar ruling by the supreme court of the country. So, if Hillary lies – so what? Its entirely legal and blessed by our court system. How can ANYBODY find fault in that!

    Of course if a plain citizen lies to law enforcement I guess an entirely different set of rules kick in. Kinda puts us ALL in their place! (if anybody actually believes that any of the jerks are on our side…..)

    jgw
    Port Angeles, WA

  5. SEAL

    December 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    During the past 7 years we have had a government that has stricken lines through many of the basic rights our constitution guarntees to our people in spite of fact that our constitution specifically states that our government can not do that. Additionally, our CEO has repeatedly declared through signing statements that he will not obey our laws and will do as he damn well pleases. He has authorized torture of prisoners and repeatedl1y lied to the nation on every issue.

    During this time, Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator whose record shows that either she supported or failed to oppose every one of the eliminations of the people’s rights nor did she challenge the president’s lies or illegal actions. This is what should be the subject of any discussion or evaluation of her as a candidate for president of this nation. These are the things that should tell us what kind of president she would make.

  6. DejaVuAllOver

    December 5, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    You got that right, SEAL. I think Hillary is bad news, especially since the Democrats deserve much better. But for crying out loud; this blood lusting, conflict-creating endlessly BS’ing Associated Press is equally disgusting.

  7. ehayman

    December 6, 2007 at 2:40 am

    Hey, all you Hillary haters, keep up the good work you are doing for the Repugnentican party.

    The truth is, the Repugnentcans don’t want to run against Hillary. They want to run against Obama. Consider: 1) Hate radio (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) is LOUDLY criticizing ANY criticism of Oprah Winfrey as she campaigns for Obama. 2)Repugnantcan mayor of New York and billionaire Blumberg recently had a private, secret meeting with Obama and neither of the attendees will say what they talked about. 3) Karl Rove is giving Obama free advice in the newspaper concerning how he thinks Obama can best beat Hillary in the primaries.

    Bottom line is this: if you were a rightwing Repugnentcan, who would you least like to run against? Figure out who that person is and then vote for them. It seems obvious to me that the person they least want to run against is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  8. SEAL

    December 6, 2007 at 4:43 am

    I hope “Hillary Hater” does not become a popular catch phrase. We already have to much nonsense bouncing around and a whole year to go.

    My only intent with my previous post was to say that, if you want to go after Clinton, please do it with things that matter and are relevant to a persons candidancy instead of contrived issues where none actually exist or they are minor little mistakes.

    But now, we are supposed to look inside the minds of established psychotic sociopathic schizoid nutcases and guess at their motivation for doing the insane things they do? That’s easy for the media hounds. They do what they have to do to get viewers/listeners. Rove is a control freak who just can’t keep his hands off of showing everyone how damn smart he is. And those with the enormous power of money want to exercise that power behind the scenes so that they can glow with the satisfaction of being known as the not so secret one who made it happen. For them, it is all about winning.

    Now, to get down to the only real facts that are known, I can’t imagine anyone with a stake in the election for president who could possibly consider that there is any chance in hell that any republican could win even if they could dig Ronnie Ray-Gun up to run.

    Of course the next president will be a democrat. Therefore, it isn’t a matter of choosing who they would prefer to run against, it is, for the republicans, choosing which democrat will be president. This is where it becomes fun watching the clash for power.

    The Bush supporters, that die hard religious right, will do everything they can and more to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning. They consider her and Bill Mr. and Mrs. SATAN. Her winning would be the end of morality in America. We would no longer be a christian nation.

    The corporate/MIC controllers presently raping the nation want Hillary because she is in their pocket and will continue funneling the borrowed taxpayer debt into their already overflowing coffers. Her reward will be a small amout of money to create her dream of national health care and the glory of becoming the first woman president. [I wonder if Bill knows that she plans to go down in history as a much greater president than he was.]

    The corporate/MIC bunch has the advantage in this power struggle. They have control of most of the press/media/news. Also, they have unlimited money to spend. The only real power the religion bunch has is the ability to bring and prevent voters to the booth. However, that cannot be underestimated. They, also, always wind up involved in counting the votes. Just refer to the 2004 election.

    So, we have these two powerhouses fighting over Hillary Clinton while Obama quietly gains support from the real voters, those middle class independents that can determine any “fair” election. But the big hurdle for Obama is obtaining the nomination.

    To do this he must win enough of the primary states to prevent Hillary from walking into the convention already a winner. If he can prevent her from a first ballot victory, he will very likely wind up as the democratic candidate because all the others will eventually shift their support to him after the second, third or forth round.

    The plain fact about Clinton is that the more exposiure she has the worse she does regardless of the venue. Stand her and Obama side by side and the longer they stay there the more she fades. She is not a good speaker and can’t “ad-lib” worth a damn. Hillary simply does not have presidential “pressence” or personality. If she has to go head to head with Obama he will cast a long shadow over her. He does have the pressence.

    This is the way I see it, your viewpoint may differ. Like it or not, the choice for the next president will be Clinton or Obama. That’s an easy decision for me.