I must admit I had trouble coming up with a headline to this post. Watch the clip and you'll understand.

On Meet The Press this morning, their round table gaggle group consisted of Sara Fagen, a former George Bush political aide, who is now part of CNBC, MSNBC host Jose Diaz-Balart and Ron Fournier, who needs no introduction and as this clip shows, hates Hillary Clinton immensely. What a nice balance, don't you agree?

Fagen was over the top the entire show and while discussing the effect Bernie Sanders has had on Hillary Clinton, made the erroneous and egregious claim that the left of the Democratic Party has moved farther than the right of the Republican party. In what reality does she live in? I haven't seen Democrats shutting down the government over George Bush's Medicare Part D plan.

Chuck Todd quickly cut in to say that both bases of the parties have become more extreme, (as is the beltway way's most favored position so they don't have to cast the GOP as tea party lunatics) but Fagen went off on a weird tangent, with no proof of course and concludes in this segment - Hillary Clinton can only win the general election if she become centrist. Say, what?

Why should Fagen bother looking at all the polls that show Hillary beating every candidate while she's making liberal policies her bedrock? Or the polls showing a big increase in Liberal voters while conservatism is falling.

There are signs that liberals are making a comeback — and not just because a socialist is running for president, gay marriage is spreading like wildfire and pot legalization is gaining acceptance. A new analysis of Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll data finds a marked increase in the share of registered voters identifying themselves as liberals, and an even bigger drop in the share saying they are conservatives. In three national polls conducted so far in 2015, the analysis found that 26% of registered voters identified themselves as liberals — up from 23% in 2014. At the same time, the share of voters identifying as conservatives dropped to 33% from 37% in 2014.

Since most of America has shifted their social positions to the left, (including marijuana and gay rights) how has that hurt the Democrats or Hillary in any way? Only Fagen knows apparently. (Rough transcript 1:56 minute mark)

Todd: (Sanders) Do you think it's dragging her to the left in a bad way?

Fagen: I think it's dragging her to the left. the reality is if you look back in the last twenty years, the left of the Democratic Party has moved farther than the right of the Republican party. On

Todd: I don't think everybody would agree with you..Some would say...

Fagen: On taxes, on spending on social issues..

Todd: They've both moved...

Fagen: They did, but they moved more. And her ability to win a general election is her ability to run as a centrist candidate and Bernie Sanders is going to make that very difficult for her.

I'm not going to list all the insane policy positions that has turned the National Republican party so far right that voters are rejecting them in presidential elections because we do it every day, but why put on a fire-breathing wingnut on a panel like this?

Ron Fournier was just as horrendous in this segment. When asked why Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has a favorable rating running for president he said because nobody knows him. And then as is his usual position, told Chuck Todd that the biggest problem Hillary Clinton faces is that nobody trusts her and he said with so much disdain in his voice. He's speaking about the biased polling questions done on Hillary Clinton and trust that I wrote about here:

Note this from Fox News:

But here's the possible trouble for Clinton in the general election: 70 percent of voters overall say that a candidate who is sometimes less than honest is a "deal breaker" for their vote -- and a 58 percent majority believes Clinton's natural instincts lean more toward "hiding the truth" than "telling the truth" (33 percent).

What is odd is that Fox never asked voters about Bush's trustworthiness, or any other Republican candidate's trustworthiness.

Fox only asked about Clinton.

The same was true of a poll released in June by CNN: "A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy." How did Clinton's "trust" score compare with Bush's? We don't know because CNN didn't ask if voters trust Bush.

And yes, the latest AP poll is guilty of the same imbalance -- it asks if Clinton is "honest," types up the results as bad news for the Democrat, but doesn't pose that query about Bush, or any of the Republican candidates.

Why the persistent double standard?

"Honesty" only comes into play for Hillary Clinton's questions. How nice of them.