In his brief letter entitled, Is Hillary Clinton a Pathological Liar?, Stephen White presents a modified score to an all-to-familiar libretto: yes, in his mind, she's still a liar, just a liar of a different type. Mr. White casually threw Bill Clinton's name in the mix to support his opinion of candidate Clinton.
Even noted columnist, Bill Safire, whom I quoted in the Blizzard Revisited article, would have likely disagreed with White's assessment. White's statements, such as: "The lying was not irrational" and "She lied for good reason" hardly sound pathological. However, select any adjective you like to define it -- Safire also used "congenital" or liar from birth -- if you throw in "liar" you viciously attack someone's character.
Certainly, character is on the line in a presidential race, but the casual use of personal attacks and child-like name-calling will not achieve the goal of the candidate who relies on them. Candidate Clinton's message relies on clarity and substance; Candidate Trump's on flexibility -- strategy du jour -- and volume. She insists that he is not qualified to be president; he persists in demonstrating that she's right. No matter how many people he fires, he can't unload the weak link without looking in the mirror.
Edward W. Lull