[T]hey [the Clintons] represent a style of honesty that the public craves right now. And that's reflected in the numbers.Well, of course! I know I crave a more profound debate.
For example, parsing the meaning of "is," is much deeper than interpreting what is meant by "You can keep your plan." The "style of honesty," though, is the same: It's looking Americans straight in the eye and saying something the speaker knows to be untrue. I'd call that a style of lying.
Public preference for a "style of honesty" (whatever that means) isn't why Clinton is preferable to Obama. For one thing, Clinton's lies didn't involve actually destroying one-sixth of the economy while screwing millions of people: Clinton was content with screwing just a few and lying about it afterwards instead of beforehand.
In any case, the question is substance, not style.