So asks Don Boudreaux over on Cafe Hayek.  And with very good reason.  You should read all of his post, the logic is impeccable if perhaps graphic.

I share his post because it is a lament I had the other night while out walking the dog with my wife.  I wasn’t thinking of Mr. Boudreaux’s highlighted falsehood, but rather further back to the cattle futures incident, where Mrs. Clinton parleyed $1000 into $100,000, by, as she claimed at the time, reading the Wall Street Journal!  It was preposterous on its face, and subsequently it came out that she made none of the trades, but rather she was assisted by a professional finance person associated with Tyson Chicken.  If I recall correctly, Tyson Chicken had been having problems with rain runoff from its chicken farms causing water pollution problems.  Governor Clinton helped with that issue, and shortly after Hillary becomes an expert commodity futures trader.  Hmmmm.   My lament came because if Mrs. Clinton ran as a conservative, her dishonesty would be an immediate disqualification for any public office–as it should be.

To most people this is just simple corruption, and when caught, Mrs. Clinton made up a story.  In other words, she lied.  Progressives would defend Mrs. Clinton by calling anybody that brings things up like this as “Hillary Haters,” and her opponents always find reasons to disagree with her.  The last part is certainly true; in my mind a much more recent episode should disqualify her for any public office–her populist pandering comment that businesses don’t create jobs.  But I would much rather point to the substantive issues than to agree with deceased columnist William Safire, who called Hillary a “congenital liar.”  I have many problems with Mr. Obama’s policies; specifically that he has a wrongheaded worldview on almost any dimension.  But I am actually very thankful that he seems to have good personal moral character, and whatever problems I have with him, its not because he has a problem with truth.  Rather my problem with him is what he sees as the truth.   Mrs. Clinton, however, has not just an isolated incident XX years ago, but rather prevarications seem to be a fundamental part of her character.

To Mr. Boudreaux’s point.  What does it say about us as a society that Mrs. Clinton is taken seriously?

EDIT UPDATE:  Just found this sad video.  Say it isn’t so: