It appears that the Two-Faced approach to politics as practiced by Hillary Clinton is the norm for all social and political interactions. That comes as a surprise to those of us that operate on the belief of honesty and right vs wrong. This author builds a foundation on how hypocrisy and doublespeak are acceptable tools of the trade. You can read this and then you will understand how the liberals operate under the outcome justifies the means rationale.
As Written by Jonathan Rauch for the New York Times:
Although this year’s presidential race has not been a season of gentle ironies, there’s one to be found in the revelation of what are alleged to be Hillary Clinton’s closed-door speeches. After all the fuss about the bombshells they might contain, they show a warmer and more relaxed figure than the guarded, elusive and sometimes evasive persona she presents to the public.
Just as refreshing, they show a disarming candor — including candor about lack of candor. Politicians need to be two-faced, Mrs. Clinton supposedly said (the campaign has not confirmed the leaked documents’ authenticity). If her frank critique of frankness proves to be more of a political nonevent than a bombshell, as has been the case to date, that will be for a good reason: Most of us know she is right, even if we don’t admit it.
When charged by Stephen Douglas with being two-faced, Abraham Lincoln replied not with a denial but with a quip (“If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?”). Citing his example, Mrs. Clinton is reported to have said this in a 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council:
“You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” she said. She added: “Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we….
Full story here: