Sorta. Bold, while not as common, is an acceptable version of bald-faced or barefaced in this context.
But any attempt to make Hillary out to be a bigger lie-facer than any other politician with her longevity and career in the field is simply character-assassination. Do keep in mind, I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I generally like truth in my advertising, and this campaign has ended up with me defending/supporting Clinton far more than I would like or want. But, whether it's buying into the propaganda that has been leveled at her for decades, or actively working against her, it amounts to the same thing. Politicians have an agenda, and speaking to that agenda, for personal or political ends, means making statements that at times, or from a certain point of view, can be seen as false. Are they actually lies? Not necessarily. This is part of the reason that PolitiFact offers a spectrum of analysis from "True" through "Half-True" to "Pants of Fire". Comparing
Clinton to, say,
Jeb Bush or
Marco Rubio, and you'll see very similar report cards, with the majority of their statements being on the upper part of the scale of truth.
Clinton has done as any other politician would in her position and with her same goals in mind. She's crafted stories that support her position, at times cherry-picked elements or spun events to better suit her particular worldview, misspoken, miss-remembered or conflated some statements, and has only been a "Pants on Fire" a handful of times. Of course, her political enemies want to do the same, and thus make a full narrative out of those failures. Over time, with repeated viewing, we arrive at a conclusion that could just as easily be leveled at similar politicians—but because of the constant repetition of this narrative, without taking into consideration who is making the allegation or what their agenda might be, the public has bought into with no better support than any other argument from repetition.
This ad nauseam attack through decades of bombardment, has certainly paid off. People now regard Clinton as a liar of the highest caliber, second only to Satan or his right hand
Trump. It's allowed discussion to be hand-waved away with a, "Well, Hillary lies, so . . ." without ever digging into the facts of the matter. It's become a myth of epic proportions, on the scale of anti-vaxxers or flat Earthers. Now, no matter how much evidence if brought to the fore, how much explanation is provided, or how much reasonableness is applied, the acceptable axiom is that Hillary lies.
