Actually Looking at the Evidence

OK, I always say never read the comments. But Kevin Drum's readers are pretty good, and this is spot on:

"Four months ago, while I was still focused on Sanders, I accepted the "conventional wisdom" that she was relatively dishonest. Now that I have to consider voting for her, I have read deeper into the actual evidence against her. Time and time again, the evidence doesn't nearly match the outrage.

"For example, the Clinton Foundation is a source of scandal, and used as an example of her dishonesty. But it's a freaking charity, which is highly rated by two rating agencies for over a decade, and has measurable results. And the Clinton's don't take money OUT of it, they put IN a million a year. How is that a scandal? Even if foreign interests felt they needed to offer money to get access to the SoS, I STILL don't see much harm in it. She's doing good work. This is like smearing Kerry as a coward, when he is an actual war hero and his opponent not.

"Contrast that to the other guy's "Foundation" into which he doesn't contribute, and the charity to which he primarily gives is his son's Foundation, so they can double count the fundraising and gifts. Oh, and he also "gave" to the Florida AG's campaign right before she decided not to pursue a case against Trump University.

"So, after trying to find actual data, all I found makes HRC look pretty good. I could not find ANY evidence that actually backed the scandal rhetoric from the right. It still may come. Assange may have something - but he should put up or shut up.

"It just looks like the cumulative mud from 30+ years of being in the public eye, and false accusations from the right. So if you get your news only from the right, you must just take it for granted she's dirty. It's all you've heard for decades."