HillarEmail2

    I'm struggling with various somewhat contradictory reactions to Hillary Clinton's spoken announcement last Tuesday and the nine-page document she released subsequently that explains her use of private email address when she was Secretary of State.  On balance though, my sense is that Clinton has provided a reasonable, if not wholly satisfactory, explanation for her actions.  I only wish she had provided it a week earlier.  This post elaborates on the following:

    1) In the past, the media has misreported Clinton's words in such a way that after several days during which I criticized her harshly, I am loath to condemn her in the absence of specific objective evidence of wrongdoing.  2) Clinton's announcement addresses most of the concerns raised about her email practices at the State Department.  Nevertheless, she does attempt to finesse away the one rule violation that I have harped on from the beginning: she did not preserve the emails in the State Department's record-keeping system.  3) Although her words did not satisfy me completely, she was far more effective than damage control specialists Lanny Davis and David Brock whose efforts amounted to pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire. Nevertheless, I am skeptical of her ability to win the Presidential election next year.

    1)  Reporters have misrepresented uncritical comments by Hillary Clinton as negative judgments about the Obama administration.

    Over the past week on my radio show and in this post, published Saturday, I have been extremely critical - perhaps too critical - of Hillary Clinton's failure to preserve her State Department emails at the agency.  I have also chided her for failing to address legitimate concerns raised by this failure.  Instead she relied on media flacks like David Brock and Lanny Davis who made a not-so-good situation look much worse.

    Responding to commentary Tuesday morning, a listener sent me an email with the subject line "Treason is more important than Hillary".  He urged me to discuss the letter that 47 Republican senators sent to Iran warning them that any negotiated deal with President Obama probably wouldn't survive into the next administration.  I concurred that the Republicans were contravening our nation's interests in attempting to undermine the peace process for purely political reasons.

    I then argued that this was not dissimilar from what Hillary Clinton had done this past summer in an interview with the Atlantic Magazine.  Quoting interviewer Jeffrey Goldberg's description of Mrs. Clinton's answers to him, I said "Clinton suggested that she finds [Obama's] approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good."

    Clinton, I contended, could have cribbed these remarks from wrong-headed if not downright dishonest neo-con pundits like Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol.  Both of whom ceaselessly chide Obam for decreasing the number of American troops in the Middle East and for not promoting the noxious "American exceptionalism" theory.  My sense was that Clinton was doing this to position herself to the right of the administration in advance of the 2016 Presidential election.

    Coming right before the November midterms, I saw the remarks as undermining Democratic chances of retaining the Senate (which they lost) and making gains in the House (which they did not).  I concluded that by knee-capping Obama, Clinton helped put Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators in a position where they could credibly "warn" Iran that any peace treaty might be short-lived.

    The problem with this theory is that Goldberg misrepresented Clinton's actual words which were far more innocuous and measured than he stated.  Clinton did not state or even imply that President Obama was overcautious.  Consider this question and answer.

    JG: Is there a chance that President Obama overlearned the lessons of the previous administration? In other words, if the story of the Bush administration is one of overreach, is the story of the Obama administration one of underreach?

    HRC: You know, I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. It’s a very key question. How do you calibrate, that’s the key issue. I think we have learned a lot during this period, but then how to apply it going forward will still take a lot of calibration and balancing. But you know, we helped overthrow [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi. (Emphasis supplied.)

    Clinton does say that she supported military assistance to the Syrian rebels challenging Assad in 2011 but she does not suggest that President Obama's contrary decision was driven by overcautiousness.

    Goldberg's more serious misrepresentation of Clinton's comments relates to the following question and answer.

    JG: There is an idea in some quarters that the administration shows signs of believing that we, the U.S., aren’t so great, so we shouldn’t be telling people what to do.

    HRC: I know that that is an opinion held by a certain group of Americans, I get all that. It’s not where I’m at.

    From this exchange, Goldberg apparently concluded that Clinton believes that the nation needs a leader who, unlike Obama, sees America as "a force for indispensable good."  But that is not a fair reading of Clinton's response which most likely rejects the opinion "held by a certain group of Americans" that the administration believes "we, the U.S. aren't so great".  In fact, Clinton is defending Obama from allegations that he isn't sufficiently pro-America.

    2) Clinton addressed the main concerns most commentators have raised but tried to finesse away the rules violation.

    Clinton's only rules violation and indeed, for me, the only impropriety surrounding her use of email at the State Department was her failure to maintain the emails on a State Department server as she was required to do under 36 CFR 1236.24 (Oct 2, 2009).  Her explanation for lawfully continuing to use her private email address - it was easier to use just one email account and she didn't want to have to notify all her correspondents of a new address - seems perfectly plausible.  In fact, I suggested this may have been her reason onair Tuesday morning.  She also responded to those raising security concerns by noting that the email server was maintained in her residence protected by secret service and she was unaware of any attempts to breach it.

    Clinton doesn't quite come out and acknowledge her failure to preserve all email records appropriately in the record-keeping at the State Department.  But a perusal of her 9-page written release shows that she recognizes this concern and that the failure was likely insignificant.  Clinton explains that she mostly emailed her subordinates via their state.gov addresses so such emails were in fact maintained on State Department servers.

    She also notes that emails to and from other federal officials would be on federal servers unless of course her correspondent also was using a private address.  She contends that when the State Department requested all of her work-related emails, a comprehensive search of her records revealed only 2,900 of over 30,000 emails that were not addressed to a federal email address.  Of these, she says, hundreds included a courtesy copy to a state.gov address.  It seems that Clinton did comply with the spirit of the rules although clearly not the letter.

    Clinton says that she deleted 30,000 or so personal emails that were on her server.  She had every right under federal rules to do so.  Indeed, had she used a state.gov email address while Secretary of State, nobody except partisan Republicans would raise questions about them.  The problem is that since she used the same email address for personal and government business, it is natural for people to question whether she deleted embarrassing or compromising correspondence that pertains to her work at the State Department.

    3) Clinton's failure to get in front of the story reflects a significant weakness as a candidate.

    Hillary Clinton's email practices at the State Department between 2009 and 2013 came to the public's attention after the New York Times published a story on March 2 that asked whether she may have violated any rules.  Clinton directly addressed these concerns more than a week later.  From the 2nd until the 10th, Clinton relied on pitbulls Lanny Davis and David Brock to defend her.  This was a big mistake.

    They came across as dissembling spinmeisters rather than honest brokers.  Had Clinton announced on March 3 that she would set forth her practices and answer questions the following day, she would likely have weathered this story well.  She might have neutralized any Republican advantage and perhaps even garnered public sympathy.

    Hillary's challenge is she just doesn't have her husband's charm or charisma and is reluctant to expose herself in an uncontrolled setting without having determined in advance exactly what she will say.  This causes her to exercise excessive caution.

    Although her enunciated policy preferences are quite similar to Bill Clinton's, she lacks his ability to persuade us that she feels empathy for struggling Americans.  Bill was Bubba.  He was one of the boys and he felt our pain.  By contrast, Hillary's attempts to be one of the girls so often seem forced.  When she discusses issues, she appears to avoid commenting on the real impact various policy choices might have on the American people.  Tragically, unless a Democratic successfully challenges for the nomination, this dynamic could hand the Presidency to a hard-right anti-labor climate change denier.

    ----------

    If you are interested in more of my writings, please browse to www.halginsberg.com

    Comments

    Hillary's challenge is she just doesn't have her husband's charm or charisma and is reluctant to expose herself in an uncontrolled setting without having determined in advance after careful vetting exactly what she will say.  This causes her to exercise excessive caution.

    Yeah, she should just say "I did not have sex with that email server" and the scandal would go away. Just like Benghazi - all they had to do was get out the facts and it was over.

    By contrast, Hillary's attempts to be one of the girls so often seem forced.  When she discusses issues, she appears to avoid commenting on the real impact various policy choices might have on the American people. 

    Yeah, too much time talking about chick issues rather than 3 strikes and taking on Saddam. I mean, who wants to hear about rural poverty and women in the 3rd world and uggh, not another speech about the "glass ceiling"?

    I wonder if we're watching the same TV? Apparently inspiring half the Democrats to vote for her in the primaries counts as "lacks his ability to persuade us that she feels empathy for struggling Americans". Who knew?

    Why don't you just title your column "Hillary is divisive and thinks she's inevitable" and sign off? Much simpler messaging for the "anyone but Hillary" crowd.

    Tragically, unless a Democratic successfully challenges for the nomination, this dynamic could hand the Presidency to a hard-right anti-labor climate change denier.

    Dude, the bar for FUD and scare-mongering has been raised much higher than that. Try "Netanyahu warns: The Left is busing Arabs to vote, the Right is in danger" - try telling us Hillary's hired Jamie Dimon as her campaign finance manager or came out for stop-and-frisk or something equally rage-worthy.


    Of course we're not watching the same TV.

    Yours always has Nascar and porn on it. 

    Whereas I want porn and Nascar.

    Never the twain.


    NASDAQ, dammit, not Nascar - i already told you I'm only into bloodsports.

    (okay, maybe TMI on my porn selection, but that's teh slippery slope of social media. did I tell you about this girl I met named Sexy Sadie who was doing snuff films...? okay, okay, how about a hot tip on NASDAQ?)


    Regarding your third point, I think it's important to distinguish her mishandling of this case (about which I am in complete agreement with you) from her future ability to handle similar cases. This one, if not already played out, will be thoroughly played out by 2016. I have numerous Republican friends and family who would not ever consider voting for Clinton, and for most of them, this issue merits a "meh". I expect the effect is even smaller on any potential "swing" voter.

    So, the real question is, does the poor handling of this case (and while it wasn't great, it also isn't the worse way she could've handled it) reflect something unchangeable about Clinton that will handicap her when 2016 rolls around? Obviously, no one would claim this one incident proves that she's not up to the task of running a Presidential campaign, but is it indicative? Does it reflect a trend we've already seen? Of that, I'm unconvinced. Sure, while given her connection to the (Bill) Clinton machine you might reasonably expect more of her, I don't feel she's doing significantly worse than Obama was doing at this point 8 years ago.

    One real question for me is, how much will American judge her differently for being female? I.e., what standards will she be held to? Bill Clinton could be "one of the boys", and for some reason that's considered a favorable thing by the electorate, but I would argue that in today's culture, being "one of the girls" very well might not be considered a favorable thing by the electorate. Sadly, leading is still often thought to be a "man's role", so women leaders are often expected to act more "masculine", as society interprets masculinity.


    I'm not sure whether Secretary Clinton could have gotten in front of this particular story, and I have to confess to not understand it completely, in part because for example I don't know what it means as a matter of law and/or ethics for example when you point to what you consider to be her failure to preserve her emails in the State Department record-keeping system properly.  But in the end it doesn't matter because this is politics and she takes the Clinton helm and all that is both good and bad with that.

    My thing is that I just sense so much concern about the Secretary as a candidate among Democrats, both because of these kinds of incidents and how they become magnified with a Clinton involved, and because as I think you seem to be saying, she's likely to run and would then govern to the right of the president.  I just hope if that's the case that someone jumps into the ring soon.  Most of us have lived through at least one Republican landslide in our political lives and it isn't pretty.

    Finally, I don't mean to be old school PC, because I think it might not be PC anymore to say this, but I'm not sure why you would speak of Hillary's inclination to try to be one of the girls.  Don't think you meant to be sexist, but maybe you could clarify that?


    The comment that Hillary can't be one of the "girls" follows directly my point that Bill Clinton is one of the "boys" and therefore, in my view, is not sexist.  I have addressed this weakness in Hillary Clinton's candidacy in yet another article which I will post here tomorrow.


     

    Considering that many State Department documents were published by Wikileaks, and also that as we learned this week, State only began archiving emails TWO MONTHS AGO; what is the significance of this:

    2) Clinton's announcement addresses most of the concerns raised about her email practices at the State Department.  Nevertheless, she does attempt to finesse away the one rule violation that I have harped on from the beginning: she did not preserve the emails in the State Department's record-keeping system.

    WHAT record-keeping system?  It appears that there isn't one.  

    And to your other, 3rd point that Hillary's failure to get out in front of this story shows weakness -- how does this compare to the profound mental weakness of the Republican (potential) candidates who signed the letter containing factual errors about our Constitution as well as a pre-emptive attack at the office of the Presidency itself?  This letter is arguably the most serious breach of international protocol in my lifetime, and shows poor judgment, lack of thoughtfulness, and profound short-sightedness that no one wants in a leader.  The bandwagon,  fraternity-like behavior of the signers of this letter, written by a complete newbie to the Senate was an immature, and pathetic blunder.  The fact that they are so ill-prepared and surprised at the relatively small amount of criticism they have recieved only shows their lack of preparedness and qualifications for leadership.  They have hurt our country's standing internationally, and after the Bush years, we need all the help we can get.

    I realize which issue is getting traction now, but really, which one has more to do with the qualities and qualifications we need in a president?  And if those in the media want to let the latter die, should we let them?


    As top dog at State, it was Hillary Clinton's responsibility to ensure that the Department was complying with federal regulations governing record-keeping.  By claiming that State had no record-keeping system, you are actually indicting her leadership.


    I don't understand your point. If the Secretary of State's responsibility is to micro-manage compliance with something as basic as record keeping, that would be a serious misuse of her expertise. There is an IT Department, an HR department, and others, all of which are full of department heads, managers, bureaucrats, and experts in dotting i's and crossing T's. Those people are not appointees, and their jobs are not temporary; they do it for years, and so complying with government regulations is what they do for a living. 

    Not sure what you mean when you say that I am "claiming that State had no record keeping system..."  I am merely noting what has been reported everywhere.  

    Do you really think that Secretary Clinton should have spent her time supervising paper-pushers in the bowels of the building rather than putting out fires around the world?  If you do think that, I don't know what your idea of leadership is, but I don't agree with it. 


    Putting out fires,....... are you kidding?

     Conservatives Claim The GOP 47 Aren't...

    Image result for burning benghazi

    Image result for burning benghazi

    Resistance, you are amazing. (In a bad way)


    She's responsible for the agency. If records aren't being kept, it's ultimately on her.

    You mean like Bush and Cheney were responsible for the complete clusterfu*ks in Iran and Afghanistan?  Well, if her responsibility is no greater than that, I guess all is well. 

    I heard that the trash wasn't picked up on two Saturdays in a row at State. How did HILLARY ket that happen?  She is obviously incompetent. 


    I'm not sure what either the disastrous Cheney-Bush administration or trash collection have to do with this.  I don't think, as I point out in the blog, that Clinton's failure to comply with the record-retention rule rules her out as President.  I don't even think it's particularly serious.  But she did violate a sensible rule, a valid rule, ultimately an important rule, and she should have admitted it early on.  Her decision instead first to employ unsavory surrogates and then when she finally discussed the situation to do so in a defensive manner did not serve her well.


    You've got that framing down, buddy - it's not the crime, it's the coverup!!!

    Forget abetting trillion dollar Wall Street crimes and the sticking us with another half trillion dollars in wars over the last 6 years or widening NSA eavesdropping and cracking down on whistle blowers or participating in a war to overthrow a leader without Congressional approval - this dame might help Republicans get elected because she has a rogue mail server!!!

    Perhaps you haven't read a newspaper in the last decade, but half the government programs were illegal and then Congress either looked away or codified the illegality to protect both Bush and Obama plus telcos plus various NSA/CIA/FBI/Blackwater contractors/etc.

    In short, you're trying to scare us with what Hillary might do in the face of obscene acts that someone already did. I'm thoroughly #unimpressed.


    Thanks, PP. I was tired of bringing points up that were either ignored or deflected by nonsequiturs.  I felt like I was talking to a teenager. I'm done, but I appreciate your chiming in. My point was only this:  If you are the President and you say words that are not true and which cause your country to go to war, and thousands of people die, that should be on you. If you are Secretary of State and some work doesn't get done by people many layers removed from you, whose job it is to fulfill record-keeping requirements (the government thrives on rules, after all); the only way this is is an issue is via partisanship. Alas, the GOP is far better at this than the Dems. I don't see changes coming, either. 

    How about when republicans bring up BENGHAZI, IRS email-gate, we just fire back, "We're not going to play the "blame game" and not respond any further?  It sure worked for KARL Rove. 


    I'm waiting for Hillaremail #3 before final judgment, or maybe Hillaremail #4 or #5.....

    Meanwhile the Republicans are planning to voucherize Medicare, bloc grant Medicaid, cut taxes on the rich (again), double the funds for the 'war on terror' while claiming tax cuts will balance the budget (again).

    There are more important issues than the fate of old emails Hal and Daggers.


    Yes but if we are going to stop the cons, we must elect a progressive President.  Hillary Clinton's email shenanigans and her record suggest that electing her may be more difficult than many of us hope and that, if elected, she will not promote economic justice.


    I fail to see how using a private email server has any connection to Hillary's commitment to economic justice. One might make the connection to a lack of transparency but I don't see how that connects to promoting economic justice. Polling suggests that the vast number of voters don't see this as an issue so it shouldn't change the difficulty in electing Hillary.


    vast number of voters don't see this as an issue so it shouldn't change the difficulty in electing Hillary.

    Equivocal? Ambiguous?  

    Debatable, but not with someone so blind as you.

    In your desperation you'll listen and trust only those who agree with you 

    Polls...you trust polls?

    Voters in the Red States have nothing good to say about Hillary or the Democrats.

    So go ahead, coronate Hillary and then wonder why Congress and the Presidency becomes controlled by Republicans,.leading to a Republican judiciary. 

    Bengazi is not going away, despite the cover ups and others trolling insults.


    You're right the email episode doesn't go to her neo-liberal economic record.  But she does have such a record.


    Oh whatevers. In 2008 we were told that Obama would promote women's issues better than HIllary. People will say most anything however tangentially related to reality.

    If you want to debate her economic viewpoint, write a column on it. This innuendo-laden comment tied to a fairly meaningless email faux scandal is just shit mongering like we've gotten so accustomed to.

    Like I said, the bar's higher - "hey, Hillary's all for union busting in Arkansas!" oh wait, Obama already helped with that, people don't care.


    Just posted it PP.


    Thanks - will peruse it & rip it apart when I get the time devil
     


    Rip away.


    We now learn that Jeb Bush had a private server. That it took him 7 years to release those emails even though state law requires they be turned over to the state in two months. And that he's only released 10% of the emails.

    Why are we learning this now? Why wasn't this big news 7 years ago? Why wasn't he being hounded about it for 7 years? Why wasn't this big news when he released the 10% a few months ago? Why isn't he being hounded about it now?

    It's just not possible to handle a fake scandal well. The republicans will ramp it up as long as they can and if the press cooperates it doesn't matter what she does or says. It's a no win situation for Hillary to point out the double standard. Hillary is doing fine. Out side the beltway and the press I doubt that anyone is paying attention.


    What difference does it make, AARGH!

    Image result for youtube hillary clinton what the hell difference does it make

    Image result for youtube hillary clinton what the hell difference does it make

    Image result for youtube hillary clinton what the hell difference does it make


    You forgot to mention that she killed Vince Foster and is a Lesbian.


    Image result for youtube hillary clinton what the hell difference does it make

    Image result for youtube hillary clinton what the hell difference does it make


    This isn't twitter. People try to  make rational arguments here. We discuss and debate the issues in depth. If your knowledge of the issues is lacking and all you're capable of doing is posting one line arguments and inflammatory pictures you should post them on twitter where all the other twits hang out.


    To those who have rational thinking ability, Hillary is not to be trusted.

    I know my pictures, that speak a thousand words,might anger the Obamites and Clintonites, but I have provided more evidence to be considered, besides the self inflicted Hillary E-mail gate fiasco; proving the case of why many Americans, (except those lacking rational thinking ability) will not be trusting Hillary; despite the Obamites and Democrats  coronation  efforts.

    Assuring another Republican win in 2016 ?

    Edit to add 

    Tragically, unless a Democratic successfully challenges for the nomination, this dynamic could hand the Presidency to a hard-right anti-labor climate change denier.

    Hear, hear 


    I know my pictures, that speak a thousand words

    No they don't. That's just a bullshit cliche that people use when they lack the intellect and knowledge to write even one coherent paragraph.


    He pisses on us from on high.


    He's just a troll. He's not even attempting to debate issues anymore. He's just trying to piss people off.


    She


    So the first big use of Hillary's emails is to examine her Benghazi response - surprise surprise. Apparently she dodged the bullet by not using the word "spontaneous", even though Susan Rice made it clear that that initial assessment was still being evaluated. Not to worry - nuance is easily squashed in DC.

    May Republicans have haunting nightmares of "Benghazi" to the end of their days, in much the way that "Whitewater" combined with "acquitted" must still burn. Again, if we had sane government and real oversight, I might care about Hillary's server - otherwise I see it as adult precaution, whatever the law/exec order-of-the-day is.  (no one seemed to care about those pesky laws when it came to eavesdropping on citizens or torturing people - but email? aghast.)


    Latest Comments