The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Poll: Most see Clinton as dishonest

S

SixPackInBoxers

Sex God
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Posts
874
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Something most who have followed the Clintons have felt for a long time but this poll is significant as an impression of someone once they have lost integrity is almost imposible to reverse during an election.


MOST SEE DISHONESTY
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton


By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A06

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
Click to expand...

For full report go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...15/AR2008041502883.html?referrer=emailarticle
 
Public perception is very important in getting votes. Honesty is highly valued among the American electorate. At the outset, I actually had expected Clinton to gain ground during the primary season rather than losing ground. It looks like the more she talks the less people trust her. This is a good reason the party should choose Obama to run in the fall.
 
In light of Obama's recent bitter comments in San Francisco, interesting elements revealed at the end of the article:


... And while majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents across demographic lines said she is honest and trustworthy, the class divisions remain: The percentage of white Democrats without college degrees calling Clinton honest hardly budged in two years, while those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent).

Among whites, the percentage saying Clinton is honest and trustworthy has declined 10 points, compared with 26 points among nonwhites. That number has declined more sharply among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points). Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Nick. I started to comment on the passage you quoted, but I was afraid it would look like I was just piling on. Educated voters, liberal voters, and African-Americans have come to distrust Sen. Clinton more rapidly than other groups. I think that is further reason to consider very carefully whether we really want to saddle the party with this candidate.
 
Personally, I tend to believe that dishonesty is an inherent trait to involvement in politics in this country. Perhaps I am being merely cynical, but that is how I feel. However, I tend to believe that Hillary has really added entirely new elements to the art of dishonesty in politics and it is that which disgusts me about her.

Even Obama has disappointed me on certain levels, such as his former relationship with Arab-American groups in Illinois and now his sudden radical zionist positions on the Middle East. But I do not believe that changing one's position on certain issues in order to win votes is the same as just outright prevaricating and making things up, the way Hillary enjoys doing.

She was always a political opportunist and a woman of absolutely no principles that have not been handed to her by a pollster. I suppose it was a short leap for her to becoming a liar as well.
 
jetsonboy said:
Or maybe he knows that if he does he might lose votes. He will say and do anything to get elected.
Click to expand...


....Hillary will say anything to get elected! The truth is irrelevant to Hillary.


Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her partial scorecard:

ADMITTED LIES

* Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

* Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

* She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

* She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)


WHOPPERS SHE WON'T CONFESS TO

* She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

* She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

* Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

* She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

* She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

* She opposed NAFTA at the time.

* She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

* She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

* She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

* The billing records showed up on their own.

* She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

* She was always a Yankees fan.

* She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

* She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).


With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?
 
jetsonboy said:
Or maybe he knows that if he does he might lose votes. He will say and do anything to get elected.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like your candidate.

He doesn't want to go negative, because he sees what happens when Senator Clinton goes negative. Smart, if you ask me.

As far as the Study goes, most people "see" Clinton as dishonest because she "is" dishonest.

"I remember landing under sniper fire ..."
 
MattieMich said:
I wonder why Sen. Obama isn't wiping the floor with her since people think she is so dishonest?
Click to expand...

Good question. Obama has huge amounts of money to spend on TV and radio, has a built in vote among African Americans and has the blogs, the press and a TV network shilling for him, so why does he have to depend on red states and caucuses to win the nomination?

The other question is: Why is Clinton perceived as dishonest? The answer to that question is that Obama picked up where the Republicans left off in trashing the Clintons. The Obama campaign has labeled her a racist, said she will do anything, say anything to get elected and labeled her as a tool of the lobbyists. The whole of the Obama campaign has been a negative attack on Clinton with a facade of "hope & change". That tactic is what elected Bush and it may well get Obama the nomination, but it is unlikely to get Obama the Presidency.
 
jetsonboy said:
Or maybe he knows that if he does he might lose votes. He will say and do anything to get elected.
Click to expand...
Hillary is the one spinning Obama's words to make him look like he was attacking and insulting those who live in rural communities. He merely acknowledged some of the cause for feelings of resentment and lack of progressiveness in these places (he has the balls to tell the truth), and she makes him look elitist and condescending to gain points.

I don't live in the US so my opinion doesn't much matter, but I wanted Hillary to win. After this tasteless stunt, I hope Obama takes it. Go Obama.
 
rotary said:
Hillary is the one spinning Obama's words to make him look like he was attacking and insulting those who live in rural communities. He really was recognizing some cause for feelings of resentment and lack of progressiveness in these places (he has the balls to tell the truth), and she makes him look elitist and condescending to gain points.

I don't live in the US so my opinion doesn't much matter, but I wanted Hillary to win. After this tasteless stunt, I hope Obama takes it. Go Obama.
Click to expand...

Certainly appreciate those comments. Unfortunately this kind of crap has been going on for a long time from the Clinton Campaign. They started the Negative Campaigning when Bill Clinton brought up race, and it has continued from there. But, as you pointed out, then their tactic is to turn it around and accuse the Obama Camp of doing it.

Fortunately, Democrats are cutting through the crap and opening their eyes to Senator Clinton's (lack of) integrity.
 
I don't understand how these cherry-picked comments spanning, what, 16 years, is supposed to make me suddenly go, "Oh my gawd! Hillary's the antichrist! Somebody please let me vote for Barack Obama! Or, better yet, John McCain!"

As to NAFTA, do you honestly expect the First Lady to criticize the President's policy? Of course not. She had to tow the Administration's line. publicly. Period. Who knows what she said privately?

The Bosnia thing was just stupid. Embellishing the story once I can kind of understand, but doing so repeatedly was just asking for it to blow up in her face. Still, it is what it is. I'm more comfortable with that scenario than I am with GWB's missing ANG files.

What's with bringing up the cookies comments all of a sudden? So the woman worked for a living. Is that unusual? So she felt on the defensive about it in 1992. Was that unusual? Quick! Someone dig out the Tammy Wynette comment! Hurry before I get....too late. I'm bored already.
 
springboksfan said:
I don't understand how these cherry-picked comments spanning, what, 16 years, is supposed to make me suddenly go, "Oh my gawd! Hillary's the antichrist!
Click to expand...

That argument is strikingly similar to Senator Obama’s defense of his “America damning” minister.

… the church and the body of Reverend Wright's work, over the course of 30 years, were not represented in those snippets that were shown on television … [Link]
Click to expand...
 
I could concede that point, opinterph, if it weren't so odd that Obama has attended that church regularly for 20 years and never, not one time in all those years, has he heard the hate rhetoric his own personal pastor was spewing? Nah. I don't buy it.

That said, I don't think Obama's the antichrist. (Hell, I don't even believe in christ, let alone an antichrist!) I just don't believe he's the right person for this job at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top