Did you even read the article? The things you are saying are objectively not true. I know you are anti-Trump so I'm not painting you with that brush, but otherwise you have swallowed the "Hillary is a dirty liar" bait hook, line, and sinker. I'm not really a big Hilary fan either, mainly because I found the move to NY to get the Senate seat to be opportunist and because I don't think her performance as SOS was very impressive. I just think the "Hillary is a prolific liar" canard needs to be called out for what it is, the result of 2 decades of anti-Clinton messaging with a big dose of sexism.
Sorry if I don't find the article convincing. There is an article for everything that you want to prove. Crying sexism is the cherry on top of the cake. When in doubt, label those who disagree with you. Sorry 923, but you are on the wrong side of history with this one.
Here is a perfect example from a Politico article that judged Hillary as the most honest:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/
Clinton
2. "Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years."
Rating: Mostly True.
PolitiFact National found that inflation-adjusted median household income had dropped 7 percent over that period, while earnings for wage and salary workers increased a modest 2 percent.
So the statement was empirically false as over the time period wages HAD RISEN 2%. Modest or not, wages had increased. Yet that statement is graded 'Mostly True'
Kasich
2. "As governor, Kasich delivered the largest tax cut in the nation."
Rating: Mostly False.
This claim in a Kasich ad was an exaggeration, PolitiFact Ohio found. Ohio’s cuts were significant, but when you factor in state population and economic size, Kansas’ reduction may be larger over time. Plus, the size of the tax cut wasn’t entirely Kasich’s idea, since the Legislature made it bigger than he first proposed.
'Kansas reduction MAY be larger over time. No empirical proof, instead simply speculation. In addition they interpret the event to be what they want 'the tax cut wasn't entirely Kasich's idea since the legislature made it bigger' Even if Kansas tax cuts in the end turned out to be a little bit large based on a more complicated mathematical model is it really a proper evaluation to look at a statement whose root purpose is to say we delivered huge tax cuts and rate it MOSTLY FALSE simply because another evaluator placed it a close #2 out of 50 states instead of #1? That statement should have been either mostly true or true.
In addition when you look at the statements that the article is evaluating they are evaluating stump speeches or debates. They aren't looking at records. It is one thing to tell a stump speech white lie (OBAMA IS TAKING JOBS AWAY!) and it is another thing to tell a blatant lie about where you stand politically or about something you have done (I HAVE TURNED OVER ALL THE EMAILS!). So when I look at the politico grades, or any other article from traditional left leaning sources I realize that media is malleable. That article had an agenda, and it fulfilled it. You must only look at the two examples above for proof. In the first there is empirical evidence that Clinton's statement is false, but the article judges it as mostly true because some of other form of financial well being chart was stagnant (but wages had indeed increased). Kasich makes a statement against no empirical evidence is submitted and instead speculation and opinion degrade the statement to a mostly false.
Those articles are political theatre for the biased masses. They are written for people like you to read and say 'SEE! I told you Clinton was honest. This article proves it because it uses numbers!' Those numbers still come down to a judgement call by a human, and after reading the judgement calls of that article I think they have a clear agenda.
If you are truly of the opinion that Hillary Clinton is a politician that can be trusted to keep her word then I am not sure what I can say to persuade you otherwise. You have taken a position that even 40% of democrats don't take. Across the board in pretty much every state's exit polling when people responded Yes to the following question:
'Honesty is important to me in a political candidate (yes or no).
They overwhelmingly voted for someone other than Hillary. She usually garnered around 5-10% of that vote. So if the media is in on a hatchet job against Hillary's honesty then they have succeeded in a manner that has never been seen before because they have convinced both sides of the aisle of a 'Falsehood'
