If you want to know why so many people guffaw at the pontifications of liberal journalists, take at look at Todd Purdum’s fumbling attempt on Politico to explain “Why Can’t Hillary Stop Fudging The Truth?”
Purdum’s answer: “Plainly put, Clinton herself has kept the issue alive over 25 years of public life, with long-winded, defensive, obfuscating answers to questions that – in politics, if not in law – cry out for a crisp yes or no reply.”
Plainly put, Purdum’s explanation is anything but “plainly put.” Nearly 7 in 10 people don’t think Hillary is dishonest because she gives “long-winded, defensive, obfuscating answers.” They think she’s dishonest because she repeatedly lies.
And they dismiss journalists like Purdum who write “long-winded, defensive, obfuscating” descriptions of that lying, euphemistically calling it “her willingness to be economical with the truth at times” or ever so gently calling it “fudging the truth” or “dissembling.” That last euphemism, however, must have been too strong for Purdum because he quickly added that “dissembling is not always a bad trait in a president.”
Many people, in short, think Hillary is a liar for the same reason they think many liberal journalists cover for her: because she is and they do.
Purdum seems to have . . . ahhhh . . . .reconsidered a bit. He has shifted his analysis, or narrative, or whatever you want to call such things these days, just a tod. Now it seems there once was a good Hillary who was transformed by evil forces into something else. Something not sinister, really, but yes troubling in a deeply tragic way.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-media-transparency-214250