There is so much to say about Hillary Clinton’s credibility and we have done so here at TheZoo a number of times. I’ll pick out two instances for you. First: Hillary is positioning herself as an advocate for blue collar workers, especially in Ohio and now in Pennsylvania, but her record speaks a different language. She was on the WalMart board and praised the company back in 1991, see for yourselves:
Her NAFTA stance is ambiguous at best, too. During her White House years, she actively promoted the treaty and whatever criticism there may have been, was due to her interest to keep health care, her own ambitious project, as a top priority, here’s Hillary Clinton on NAFTA:
I am really reluctant to accuse somebody of making money. We all want to do that and the Clintons are by any standard very talented people, put their talents to the test and made a fortune, fine with me. But where the fortune comes from, is a legitimate question to ask if there is a conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton’s failure to part ways with Mark Penn, the adviser, who moonlighted in promoting a trade deal that she, again as with NAFTA, now publicly opposes, opens questions about the seriousness of her opposition. Even more damning, a $ 800’000 personal windfall for the Clintons stemming from Bill Clinton’s promotion of free trade with Colombia adds to the doubts about her credibility.
Small wonder that the Economist/YouGov poll shows that around 70% of voters feel Hillary Clinton says what people want to hear as opposed to her saying what she thinks. This is definitely a credibility problem.
Again, you are very much welcome to comment on this and to point out occurrences that struck you as having gone awfully wrong for the Clinton campaign.