Of course we don’t trust her. But of course you can trust ME!

/ Historiann

Can everyone stop bleating about Hillary Clinton’s low scores on trustworthiness.  Like, now, or yesterday, or 6 months ago?   They.  Don’t.  Matter.

No one trusts a woman who’s asking for a promotion, because women are supposed to defer and let men take the credit! Women who stick their necks out for more money and/or more power are never trusted. It’s baked in, and it has little to do with Hillary Clinton’s specific record. 

Trust me on this!

26 thoughts on “Of course we don’t trust her. But of course you can trust ME!”

  2. Her “trust issues” might not be about her record, but they are about a pattern of public dishonesty which, amongst other things, I find to be disqualifying, hence the Gary Johnson for President sign in my front lawn.

    Like

    Reply

    • Compare her record (as you say) of “public dishonesty” to any male pol with her experience.

      I assure you that it will not even be a close call.

      Like

      Reply

      • Taking your point as a given for the sake of argument, that is not what is driving my thought process. Rather, it is “Can I in good conscience cast my vote for X”. If the answer is no, then I spoil my ballot, or vote for a third party.

        Like

    • What pattern are you talking about? As politicians go, she’s really honest (maybe not as honest as the George Washington myth, but still much more honest than the rest of the crop this year.)

      Like

      Reply

      • It is well documented at Politifact and the Washington Post Fact Checker – alongside, of course, the lies of so many other politicians. Personally, I find those regarding NAFTA, Marriage Equality, TPP, and the emails most disturbing. To reiterate what I noted to Historiann, the “Others are worse” argument does not hold water with me.

        Like

      • Politifact? You mean the organization that listed Ms. Clinton as the second most truthful of the major party candidates as of last December? That’s, um, an odd organization to cite when you’re talking about lying liars and their lying lies.

        If, instead, you’re rejecting her because of NAFTA & the TPP, why don’t you come out and just say that (though if you’re against marriage equality Gary Johnson seems like an odd choice; the libertarians are ignorant as can be, but they do seem to come down on the right side of that issue)? Bringing out the warhorse nonsense about Teh Emails makes you seem like just another kook, which seems counterproductive?

        Like

  3. Harry Enten over at 538 irritates the crud out of me on this. He is forever bringing this up (and pretending as if the numbers he’s presenting look equally bad for HRC as for Trump– they NEVER do, and sometimes he doesn’t put them into context at all and you’re like, how does this compare with other people? Like do we really trust any politician? Even ignoring that she’s doing it backwards and in heels.).

    Also, false equivalencies are a tool of the patriarchy. And I’m annoyed that twitter shut down the AP_headlines parody account. It was hard-hitting and brilliant.

    Profane: She is the most honest high-level politician across so many measures. It’s insane how far she’s gotten and how honest she’s been and how very little credit she gets from anybody about it. (Yes, there have been studies from reputable scholars that you can google.) Because if you’re not 100% perfect, or completely out of the picture (like Johnson who hasn’t had a chance to be tested), and you’re a woman, you get no credit. You have to be 100% pure or it doesn’t count. Kind of like virginity.

    So, I submit that anyone who has Gary Johnson sign on his front lawn (or at least anyone who isn’t so much of a Jeff Goldblum fan that they don’t care about anybody else) is a tool of the patriarchy. Libertarians care more about white men paying low taxes than they care about, say, people. Especially women and minorities who need government protection and government help. The “she’s dishonest” thing is just smokescreen, or else part and parcel of implicit bias against women.

    Like

    Reply

      • Oh yeah, didn’t you say before you had some sort of personal thing with her that you didn’t want to talk about.

        Whatever it is it may be a perfectly good reason for you personally not to vote for Clinton. Maybe you’re friends with one of the women Bill Clinton sexually harassed. And you believe that HRC is not a victim herself, and blame her for her disbelief/denial. Fine.

        However, that’s not a “pattern of dishonesty”. Saying it is is buying into exactly what Historiann is decrying in her post. And in her response to you. There is no pattern of dishonesty that is any worse than any prominent male politician’s, except for maybe Tim Kaine.

        Like

    • THIS: “You have to be 100% pure or it doesn’t count. Kind of like virginity.”

      Indeed. And with women in politics, it doesn’t even matter if the sexual impropriety is your husband’s and not your own!

      I’m just astonished at the hay the Trump campaign is trying to make of Huma Abedin’s marriage breaking up. But then, I guess it’s the same move they’re trying with Clinton: blame her because of her husband’s extramarital resume, because there’s no evidence of her own impropriety.

      Like

      Reply

      • Not just the trump campaign! The Main Stream Media has been sending out tweets about how you can’t say anything bad about Bannon because of Weiner(!)

        Exactly the same thing with it not mattering about Trump’s serial infidelity because HRC’s husband was also unfaithful. In fact, Bill’s infidelity actually seems to be more of a liability than Trump’s!

        Like

  5. This is so depressing. The sexism is awful and I feel personally implicated in it.

    I hate to admit this but I was very reluctant to embrace HRC in the democratic primaries. (I wasn’t thrilled with Bernie either, but at least he represented a left wing perspective on economic issues). It was in no small part due to the arguments presented here by Historiann and articles like the Jill Abramson one that Susan linked to that changed my mind. Also, I think it is stunning that people say HRC is corrupt or the Clintons are some how guilty of criminal behavior, and yet not one investigation has led to a trial or conviction.

    In large part I think my reluctance was due to the prevailing sexism and double standards exhibited in the media and our public discourse. I am reminded by the sexism I see in my own university, where male students have difficulty dealing with any female professor who has authority over them. I see the same thing in the news and TV coverage of HRC and her campaign. My spouse is convinced Trump will win because nobody likes women, period. I don’t feel that much despair, but some days you have to wonder (like that AP story about her State Department meetings and lobbyists -really? you cannot walk down the street in DC without tripping over a dozen lobbyists. I would be surprised if a cabinet official did not regularly get lobbied like this through every possible channel.)

    I do still think that HRC is more in tune with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party than the Left wing when it comes to economic issues. But, oh well. Right now money talks and politicians need to listen to the money that runs our political system. And almost any Democratic politician is better than any Republican on these economic questions.

    I think that HRC is fundamentally an honest person, and a politician who would like to do good in the world. So I am on board. I am bummed that she probably won’t end the drone war that Obama expanded. I don’t hold out much hope that she will end the war on teachers that the Democratic Party has embraced (again thanks Obama for the never ending ‘gift’ that is Arne Duncan). But who knows, with a Democratic Congress we might all be pleasantly surprised by what HRC can accomplish.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Pingback: A Matter of Trust | From Pine View Farm

  7. It amazes me that people like Profane blame Hillary Clinton for NAFTA. It was negotiated by the George H.W. Bush admin, and passed by Congress. It was her husband, not her, that signed it into law. Which is the general expectation, that presidents sign what the assumed people’s representatives pass, unless they have a very compelling reason not to. That certainly would be the case with an incoming president. Who, remember, was BILL Clinton. Hillary Clinton was simply a new first lady who was still dealing with fallout from not paying sufficient homage to baking cookies.

    I was an adult and an active voter during the 1990s. It was well-known that asshats like sexist Larry Summer who pushed the most objectionable policies hated Hillary Clinton, who was reported to oppose them. I’ve always suspected that those idiots pushed the “Hillary was the evil genius responsible for it all!” meme to take the political heat off themselves. **cough** Rahm Emanuel **cough**

    Still waiting for the investigative commission on the Bush brother (Marvin, I believe) whose company conveniently got a government contract to supply materials for No Child Left Behind. I guess corruption only matters if you can ascribe it to a woman.

    Like

    Reply

    • Not to mention Neil Bush, who was responsible for the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal. My grandparents got taken on that one. I still think the Bushes personally owe my family that $3,000.

      Like

      Reply

      • Americans loooooooooove nepotism when power is passed down through blood ties to other men. But you forget that we must subject Hillary Clinton to Clinton Rules, which means that it’s all bad, wrong, and evidence of her purely corrupt, filthy, grasping, and destructive nature.

        (As I have written here before, at some length!)

        Like

  8. Pingback: Trust, gender queerness, and Hillary Clinton | Historiann

Let me have it!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.