Hillary Clinton's honesty called into question in new poll

Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that "honest" was not the best word for the presidential candidate.

|
Mark Lennihan/AP
Hilary Clinton's struggles to explain her email practices while in government and foreign donations to the family's charitable foundation seem to have struck a nerve in the public's perception of her.

Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton's honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring and likable? Only a minority think so.

Ms. Clinton's struggles to explain her email practices while in government, along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism of her openness, wealth, and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in the public's perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016 campaign. In the survey, 61 percent said "honest" describes her only slightly well or not at all.

Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that "honest" was not the best word for her.

Even so, she is viewed more favorably than her potential Republican rivals, none of whom are as well-known as the former secretary of state, senator, and first lady.

With Clinton facing little competition on the Democratic side, Republicans are trying to make questions about her integrity central to the early 2016 campaign. They paint her as a creature of Washington who flouts the rules to get ahead.

Her use of a private email account run from a server kept at her New York home while serving as secretary of state has fed perceptions that she had things to hide. And questions are swirling about foreign donations to the family's charitable foundation and whether that money influenced her work at the State Department.

James Robins, an independent voter from North Carolina, says his generally positive opinion of Clinton has shifted over the past few months, as more details have emerged about her email usage and foundation fundraising practices.

"She and her family think they're above everything," he said. "She intentionally destroyed all the evidence on that server. And when you look at some of her other stuff recently it's equally as bad."

Clinton said last month that she used a personal account out of convenience. She deleted about 30,000 emails that she has described as personal in nature and has declined requests from congressional Republicans to turn over her server for an independent review.

The survey suggests that many Americans aren't buying Clinton's explanation: A majority said they believe she used a private address to shield her emails from transparency laws and they think she should turn her server over to a third party for further investigation.

At the same time, the public is split over whether her email usage is a significant issue for her presidential aspirations: Less than a third – 32 percent – said it was a major problem, 36 percent rated it a minor problem, and 31 percent said it's not a problem at all. Only 20 percent said they're paying very close attention to the email story.

"We don't have the whole picture and all the information that we need to make a judgment," said Ruth Johnson, of Moorhead, Minn. "Will she show everything that was emailed? Or has she eliminated a lot of stuff we'll never know about?"

Still, Clinton's overall ratings remain the strongest in the emerging presidential field and are essentially unchanged since two AP-GfK polls conducted last year. Forty-six percent of Americans express a favorable view of Clinton, slightly more than the 41 percent who express a negative opinion. No potential Republican candidate in the poll had significantly greater positive than negative ratings.

Polls generally showed Clinton with a much higher approval rating while she was secretary of state. Opinions of her have become more polarized as she has re-entered partisan politics, as they were when she vied for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

Despite Clinton's dominance in the early primary field, the survey suggests that some in her party would be open to a challenger.

Among Democrats, only 34 percent said they were excited by her candidacy while 36 percent described themselves as merely satisfied. Another 19 percent said they were neutral, and 9 percent were disappointed or angry.

"I wish there was somebody else," said Kenneth Berger, of New York City. "She always has a problem."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Hillary Clinton's honesty called into question in new poll
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0502/Hillary-Clinton-s-honesty-called-into-question-in-new-poll
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe