Cheers, Diane.

Was going to reply to you, Ken, but Heather’s already covered the subject well and I have nothing more to add.

Agreed.

Again, no argument, but it’s not what they say to her that matters here, but what she says to them and whether that is very different to what she says to us. We may not get a smoking gun, but we’ll know if she starts going back on promises, starting very soon with the TPP.

I agree it’s a concern if that happens (and your own experience means I’m sure you’ve come across a lot of it) but I’m not convinced yet that there’s good evidence for this on Hillary’s part. If she’s going to put more regulations on Wall Street, she should consult them. However, that doesn’t mean she has to do what they say. It would be stupid to just create a set of regulations without even talking to the industry and then just impose them. Whatever the situation, they should feel like they at least got the opportunity to have their say.

Presenting the same ideas in different ways to different audiences is not only ok, it is an absolute requirement to building support for your ideas. I’m not talking about that at all. It’s saying mutually exclusive things to different groups that’s the problem. We have good reason so be worried about this with Hillary, particularly when she won’t say what she’s been telling Wall St audiences.

I don’t know that it’s about lying. It’s more about getting what’s possible done. Also we all talk differently in different environments. (Though not, of course, to the extent of Trump!) I think it depends on the subject to a certain extent too.

There are obviously some who are really duplicitous, but at the same time you can have a dream about the kind of world you’d like to see but know that isn’t possible in the current environment.

As a matter of fact, having worked in politics, I know several. It’s bad enough that there are so many incentives to lie without us plebs sending the signal that it’s expected, don’t you think?

So, politician is politician and handlers are handlers. Yawn.

Does anyone really think that most politicians don’t have public vs. private positions?

That particular statement has a back story that I’ve even heard Bush’s former press secretary describe as “probably the truth.” I’m too busy trying to write about the debate at the moment, and it came up there, so I may include it. If not, remind me. I haven’r read the link so I don’t know if the explanation is there.