I do think that one's reaction to this depends on how you already feel about a candidate. I don't like Sanders so I don't think Hilary was over the line.
Frelga, one's reaction? Yes, you're probably right.
One's judgement of whether someone is telling the truth? No. I don’t judge an incident by my emotional response but on what evidence and logic say.
I'm even capable of disliking some aspects of a person’s character while considering them an effective and maybe even admirable leader. As far as I’m concerned, a president can commit adultery 5 times a week and devil worship in his/her spare time. It’s how they act when doing their job, and that they're trustworthy there, that I care about.
And it’s entirely possible to admire Mrs. Clinton for what she has accomplished in her life – and that’s a lot - without being blind to her flaws.
In this case, she said something that is clearly not true. She knew it was not true (she was in the Senate and Secretary of State, and she obviously knew the inner workings of Congress). And she doubled down on it.
As far as my reaction/opinion:
If she said it in the heat of the moment, I’d give her a pass. Especially if she later clarified it to the reporter as “well, I don’t like him and I know plenty of people who don’t like him, but, sure, some of his colleagues like him.”
But she didn’t. She said it in a film about why she lost the 2016 election. I’m not sure whether it was said in bitterness right after she lost, or filmed later. If it’s the latter, then it’s worse, because she had time to think about it and could probably have changed it (unless the filmmakers’ goal was to stir up controversy, of course). Then she repeated it in another interview, after she had plenty of time to think about it.
What I actually think is more interesting is “Why did she say it?”
Is she a pathological liar? No, I’ve seen no evidence for it and would be very surprised if she was. I'm sure she's lied as a politician. But I also suspect most of those those lies were strategic and for a goal.
Does she truly believe it? Maybe, but if so she's surrounded herself with quite the bubble of like-minded people. And even 10 seconds worth of reflection should have made her realize it isn't true before she repeated it the second time.
Did she say it because she’s bitter and blaming everyone else for her loss? That seems a definite possibility – we’ve seen a lot of that from her since the election. She’s not the first to lose - not even the first to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote - but I don’t remember any other candidates talking publicly for years about how the election was stolen from them (though some of their supporters did, of course). Then again, if they did, maybe the media didn't amplify it like they do with Clinton.
Did she say it to bring down Bernie Sanders and promote Elizabeth Warren, his main “progressive” opponent? That also seems possible but entirely speculative.
One thing in favor is that HULU is bringing out this documentary about why Clinton lost in 2016. It’s interesting timing. And I sure as hell don’t see too many people clamoring for it - if there’s any bipartisan agreement I’ve seen, it’s that most people wish she’d shut up about her loss and why it happened.
Ultimately, I’ll have to see what the documentary says. Is it a puff piece that ignores the damage the revelations about DNC shenanigans did to Clinton, and the fact that many people simply didn’t like her? (I’ve heard 2016 described by many people as a race where they had a choice of the lesser of 2 evils.) Or is it an unbiased analysis of what happened?
Overall, I think Mrs. Clinton is a bitter woman who badly wanted to go down in history as the first female president, instead of a footnote as the candidate who lost twice, once to Barack Obama in a primary election, and once to Donald Trump, a sleazeball moron, in the general election. And I don’t think she has the grace and self-awareness to realize she’s doing her image no favors with her recent behavior.
But this is all for the primaries. I'll vote for anyone, even Bloomberg.
Yeah, I know. Though I really hope it's not Bloomberg. I don't mind Steyer, in spite of the media always having to put "billionaire" in front of his name as if the others are all paupers.( I'm sure that none of them is hurting for money, and I expect they all have more in common with each other - including many members of the other party - than with us ordinary humans.) Normally, I’m fairly cynical about the candidates for major offices, though of course I prefer some to others. But Trump is just a disaster in all ways. Except maybe to those zealots who love conservative judges so much and/or have such a overwhelming anti-abortion agenda that they willingly blind themselves to everything else. I just plain want him gone while there's still a shred of an effective government and/or he hasn't managed to muck up international affairs beyond recovery.
At least I have the luxury of being able to vote third party if I really dislike the Democratic candidate (I might reach that point with Warren. I've really lost faith in her judgement, some of the things she's said and done lately). I live in one of those blue state that always goes for the Democratic candidate. We pretty much get ignored by both sides. I could vote for our cat and it wouldn't make the slightest impact.
Nice that they put aside their rivalry at the MLK event, btw.