2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat HRC e-mail scandal comes down to, in one word:
Arrogance.
It's why this issue will not die. It's about likability, a big factor in presidential elections (for better or worse).
Whether or not Hillary did something technically legal, she showed contempt for the normal order of things, for the idea that the office of Secretary of State was bigger and more important than she was, the idea that the country and the people's right to certain information was more important than her personal ambitions.
And so the Republicans will do their level best to keep investigations going. Yes, it sucks that the political enemies of the Clintons do what they do; but she had a part in this too.
Not that it matters much to me -- if you took away all the scandals, fake or otherwise, I'd still support Bernie over Hillary on policy.
But there are plenty of people who vote on a visceral, emotional, gut-level basis. This e-mail scandal speaks to them, and like it or not, it's something that must be taken into consideration when choosing our candidate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)about the media following if one person says something, they have to use the same words,
Every time they say Scandal, I think TV show, it is not a scandal until something is found to be illegal or immoral and neither is true.
cali
(114,904 posts)the republicans an issue to exploit on silver platter that plays to what many voters see as her worst qualities. She used one email account for both work and personal and deleted over 30,000 with no oversight.
The basic problem is the use of the SAME private email server for her personal correspondence and ALL of her government email correspondence. This has both the appearance, and the reality of conflict of interest. And, as you said, plays into the worst memes about her and her MO.
The Republicans didn't make her do this. She chose these email arrangements all by herself
And it was a phenomenally bad choice.
(It also was a choice made by NO other cabinet officer in the Obama administration, by the way).
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)It raises questions about how much she cares about transparency in politics.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)if you have enough money and have a loud megaphone (FOX) and say the same thing over and over people will believe it. I just spent yesterday on another board arguing with someone who believe "Brownie" was blamed for something not his fault (unless being born stupid and selfish is your fault or maybe inbred) They read his oped blaming the mayor and then watched FOX which blamed the mayor and so and so and so - the mayor accepted some blame but the big stuff was under Brownie and W's penchant to go on vacation in a crisis.
having a server is unusual for you or me, but not unheard of for people in the government apparently. MY sister was a small time accountant and had one set up by her nerdy son because she hated her cable company. She had a single person accounting firm and she had her own server used for both work and personal. Does that mean she was stealing from her clients - NONONONO not miss honest to the point of being annoying. Does it mean she was cheating for her clients against the government - nononono. Would she release her e-mails - doubt it without a struggle.
seriously don't act as if no one does this, you yell at JEB - he has never released his e-mails for the 2000 election that was on his private server. He cold be charged with conflict of interest. Go yell at the Bush administration who who never turned over the republican party server that had their business e-mail on it. Go yell at Colin Powell who ran for president with out any issue on his e-mail and used Yahoo for his work e-mail server - Yahoo - still can't get their search engine to work since they changed it.
Nope there are different rules for the CLintons - if they sneeze it gets tortuously examined. And it should stop here. with us. do w eat our own?
MBS
(9,688 posts)and, speaking from direct experience, use of a private server for government business is NOT standard operating procedure*. We were reminded frequently of the importance of using our government email accounts for government business, and also of the vital need to avoid conflict of interest, even the appearance of conflict of interest, in every action we took.
(*In fact, I've never before heard of a single employee with an arrangement of this kind. And speaking of "different rules for the Clintons": HRC's decision to use such a server -- unlike any other cabinet officer in the Obama White House --plays right into the meme that Clintons themselves feel entitled to play by different rules than the rest of us. And her commingling of personal and government correspondence lays her wide open to questions about conflict of interest) .
This is why I am so upset about HRC's choice to use a private server. With her clear presidential ambitions; her long experience, both with the Republican attack machine, and with the ethical and functional underpinnings of both the legislative and executive branches of government; the explicit Obama White House policy on email protocols and transparency of government operation, not to mention just plain common sense - she should have known better. She knew the rules, she knew the ethical and operational principles behind the rules, she knew how the Republican attack machine operated. She should have known better.
I do not question the legality or "allowability" of her email arrangements.
But I do question her political and strategic judgment. And, yes, I admit that it does make me wonder about her sense of ethics as well.
It's not a "scandal". But it's a big political problem, and one that Sec. Clinton created all by herself. While it may not prevent her nomination as the Democratic candidate, it has the potential to pose real dangers in the general election.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)People have to deal with the fact.
There ARE particular status for the Clintons.
No one can deny it.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Yes, Hillary Clinton admitted that using a private server for government emails was a mistake.
You can't pass off all the blame when even the person who made the mistake admits it.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)it doesn't really mean anything in the real world. So now admitting it was wrong sets her up for even worse criticism.
fyi I have a lot of problems with Hillary (TPP, wall street friends, etc.) but still feel this is a bogus benghazi made up issue. If I want to attack her I wish it would be on policies.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)And bad old-fashioned misogyny is a major ingredient of that hate.
"Arrogant"=Uppity woman! Doesn't know her place!"
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)When he sealed a bunch of records before leaving the Governor's office to run for president. Sometimes arrogance is just arrogance. I understand that for a lot of people, misogyny plays a part here; but not for me. Indoor plumbing, outdoor plumbing... No difference.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)than she has been by the Democrats.
Imagine that Obama had appointed a career diplomat, Holbrooke was mentioned, or John Kerry or Richardson as his Secretary of State in 2009. Ignoring whether you think that they would have not set up such a system, do you think that as the Obama administration started defining rules, they would not have been told to move to the government servers and to immediately provide all the emails on the server to the government to insure that they had everything archived as they should? (Note that all accounts say JK started to use State.gov exclusively for work from day one -- he has always been for transparency and following ethical rules, but as it was day one, it seems like the Obama administartion was already against the unusual Clinton practice.)
There could be a valid argument that Clinton simply followed what her predecessors did -- and went just a bit further to set up a server that only she - not the government that she was part of - controlled. It is also true, that independent of HRC, email itself became a more dominant form of communication. By all accounts, Rice and Powell used it far less than she did. At any rate, no matter how it happened, when it became public, it was an issue because it meant that records that FOIA should have had access to were hidden. By the time it happened, she had been out of office for two years and the same story spoke of the SD negotiating with her to get the emails back. (This has morphed into the Clinton machine story that the SD asked all recent SoS's for their email and only she complied and she did so immediately. ******* speculation on my part to follow ******* That appears to be a self serving cover story - and I would venture a guess that as part of the deal to get the records, the SD had to agree to do that and likely to stay quiet until she had delivered the emails.)
Let's speculate what would have happened had this become known while she was still Secretary of State and consider how she or a different SoS would have been treated. Do you think it likely the SoS would have asked to resign? I suspect that ANY SoS, other than Clinton, would have been pushed to resign taking responsibility for something that at minimum led to bad press for the administration. The difference with Clinton vs anyone else, was the political cost of asking her to resign would have been a HUGE schism of the Democratic party. You may remember that the agreement with Obama when HRC became SoS was that she brought with her into the SD all her own people. This was a unique agreement and the same thing did not happen with Kerry, a former nominee and Chair of the SFRC - higher level positions than HRC ever had other than as the wife of President Clinton.
What becomes abundantly clear when you look at yesterday's DNC event is that the Clinton era people are still in charge. This is a natural consequence of Obama hiring as many Clinton people - the only Democrats with presidential administration experience who were not ancient. For many their first and strongest political allegiance is to the Clintons. ( It is actually ironic that where in terms of what he did as President, Obama was far more transformative than Clinton - he may have far less imprint on the Democratic party infrastructure. )
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)There ARE special privileges when it comes to HRC. Think that RW screamed loudly "KERRY RESIGN" only because he tried to bring equitable peace process in I/P.
All of thay says a lot about how works the name recognition factors.
Didnt knew Hillary has brought all her people at State thought. That speaks volume.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)This seems to be a long-running claim.
What would cause the "hate" to begin? What has sustained it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
oasis
(53,692 posts)impeachment witch hunt. Bill was on a path to outshine Ronnie Reagan as the best president of the half century. By most estimates, Bill was a wildly popular president, while the polar opposite of Ronnie. The right never got over it.
Had Hillary condemned Bill over the Lewinsky thing, public opinion of him would have slipped badly.
The outcome of the impeachment would have been different.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)didn't the "hate" on Hillary launch the Whitewater & Rose Law Firm investigations well before that?
It's hard to trust memory about things more than 20 years ago, but it seems to me that HRC met tremendous resentment (that sort of thing that would in the current use of language be called "hate"
as she was attempting to launch the healthcare initiative at the front end of WJC's first term.
And that (my first recollection of HRC meeting serious political resistance) seemed to include, at least overtly, much resentment and a bit of fear about the marketing of 2 national leaders for the price of 1 that WJC sometimes included in his first campaign.
The Hillary 'Hate" that emerged in 2007--and in my opinion is a common source of resentment for many younger HRC supporters--with it's various "Stop Hillary" pacs was quite remarkable and unlike anything I'd seen in my life up to that time. Ir went well beyond the "Don't elect a Catholic" thing I'd witnessed used on JFK in the run up to the 1960 election.
oasis
(53,692 posts)what she was talking about. Richard Mellon Scaife, Rush Limpwad, Barbara Olsen and dozens of other influential ultra conservative personalities and institutions had it in for the Clintons from the beginning of his presidency.
"Clinton Hate" soon became a cottage industry. Phony news stories and books were written, hate radio cranked out daily bullshit. A mountain of distorted facts began piling up over the years. When asked "why do you hate the Clintons?" many Americans could not provide an explanation.
The negative perception of Hillary is the product of years of witch hunting.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I understand that there is a lot of parsing around word use and also individual experience/memories I just think it goes back a very long way.
Even so, the 2007 primary produced a remarkable anti-Clinton movement that descends with it's own legacies inside and outside of democratic circles.
oasis
(53,692 posts)oasis
(53,692 posts)The Maureen Dowds and Laura Ingrahms of the world, along with tabloid journalism, has fueled both.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)"The negative perception of Hillary is the product of years of witch hunting."
I have a negative perception of her from things she actually did: like voting for the Iraqi war, her coziness with Wall Street, her work on the XL Pipeline, her unwillingness to answer questions about the TPP and that sort of thing. She's fine on social issues and I agree with her, but I don't like her economic policies and her hawkishness.
I don't give two frigs about Whitewater and Lewinsky.
I do think the email issue has some legs, but not from a criminal point of view. I understand her using her own server was allowed, I just don't think it was prudent (and patently unsafe).
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"arrogance" is as properly defined, just take a gander at CNN or MSNBC for their daily display of arrogance by Trump!
madamesilverspurs
(16,510 posts)"swiftboating".
karynnj
(60,965 posts)In addition to eternal shame that the RW should but doesn't feel for this disgusting action, there is also the fact that the Democratic party was not all that good at defending Kerry - even though it should have been extremely easy.
The Clinton wing of the party actually was pretty unhelpful. Carville and Begala, with the most prominent TV positions, basically pushed the "anybody but Bush" meme. No one then even thought to point out that the AB (X) had always been used in the primaries. In the primaries, it referred to many times when the frontrunner was running against several people who were all in the dominant space in the political spectrum for the party while the front runner was not. The idea was always that they should all line up behind any one of these politicians to beat the frontrunner. Anybody but Carter and Anybody but Clinton were the most obvious Democratic times. In reality, the idea in the primaries tended to fail.
In the general election, it is absurd. In ANY election, there are many people in each party that are almost certain to vote for their own party's candidate. Is there anyone here who was not already committed to voting against Bush in 2004? No matter who the Democrats nominated - Dean, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, HRC??? In fact, JK won a high percent of the primary votes than Bill Clinton in 1992. I don't remember anyone ever arguing that they were not really supporting Bill Clinton, but were just Anybody but Bush. I know that as I canvassed in NJ, I never said or thought that, even though Bill Clinton with his awful environmental record and a character I already saw as flawed because of the ease which he lied on both Genefer Flowers and the draft, was among my last choices. I read "Putting People First" and argued on things I agreed with to persuade a few people undecided in the race. If a working woman, with three kids under 7 could do that, it would seem that major political operatives could - if they wanted to.
Consider what that did. At a point when Kerry NEEDED the party to stand behind him and defend his character, you had these two weasels making snarky attacks on Bush, that were loved here but did little to really help, and speaking of Kerry as ABB. (Carville in APril, when JK was the defacto nominee even speculated that maybe the convention would pick a "stronger" candidate and nominate her.) Note they made NO effort to look at Kerry's record to find anything he did that they could enthusiastically support. (Here, they could have looked at the things Teddy Kennedy said -- including the credit Kennedy gave Kerry in working with him on the original design of what became SCHIP. (Note that just 4 years later they spoke often and eloquently about the importance of that bill -- which HRC helped lobby for. )
Given the nature of the SBVT attacks AND the fact that Kerry had already put his entire (non medical) records on his website, this really was a case where OTHERS should have defended him more strongly than they did. It is also something where it is extremely hard to defend yourself -- as it means essentially defending that you really are a hero. Something it is much better to have others say. The media (including Carville and Begala, ignored Kerry's own comments on the issue before the Firefighters' union. Edwards promised the campaign repeatedly that he would defend Kerry -- then didn't, fearing it could hurt him.
In fact, the Democrats had a wealth of things to use to defend Kerry -- starting with the office Navy record. They could have repeated Senator John Warner's comment that Kerry was a war hero - Warner, a Republican had been Secretary of the Navy then. They could have repeated the comments of the Nixon administration on the tapes that they never anticipated would see the light of day -- that they investigated JK and he was both "clean" and a war hero. They could have noted that all but one of the men that were on any of Kerry's swiftboats were 100% behind him (as they still were in 2010 when they surprised him at a Boston celebration of his 25 years in the Senate.). They could have used the 30 plus page list of provable lies in the SBVT book that the Kerry campaign gave to the media within days of the book coming out. They could have quoted Rassman, the republican marine, Kerry saved in Vietnam.
It is also true, that after he lost, Bill Clinton led an effort to further smear Kerry as not having fought back. In fact, in 2004, the same Bill Clinton whined that JK spoke too much of Vietnam. It is rather annoying that the Democratic party that spent 8 years defending Clinton, often when they personally were offended by his actions did not feel the same responsibility to defend John Kerry's genuine heroism. Now, as further chutzpah, they are using the word swiftboating to deflect attacks on questionable Hillary Clinton behavior.
Is what is happening to Clinton swiftboating? While it is true that many accusations here go to HRC's character, they come out of things that she actually did do - not as a young adult, not distorted -- but what she really did as Secretary of State. It is good that she is finally taking the issue seriously and answering the questions. Not every negative story against a candidate is "swiftboating" -- though (tellingly) every attacked candidate from HRC (in 2008 when Democrats called her on giving 2 answers on Spritzer's licenses for illegal immigrants idea) to Giuliani has used the word. Why? Because the word now means politically motivated lies.
Many basic points of the accusation here are not lies. She is being accused of many things related to her use of email. She was the first Secretary of State (and likely Secretary of anything) who had her own server. She did comingle her work and personal emails and as she had her own server and had bought her own phone, she obviously was not constrained by technology on this. Her team then unilaterally sorted the work from personal emails. Beyond the server, there are accusations that people within the SD - her people? - sent summaries based on intelligence from other organizations to her via this email. For THEM, that could be a major problem, but it is also clear that she likely asked for this.
There are real issues here. I would imagine at this point that the best answer would be to hire some excellent computer people and people who understand security and put out a position paper that details how as President she thinks email could be used in sensitive departments in a way that both keeps the information safe and provides the information that should be provided to FOIA requests. When releasing this, she could have a" Reverend Wright" speech where she admits that in retrospect her use of a private server was wrong and then speak of how when she came in there were no clear precedents and that a Clinton presidency would set clear rules designed to keep this from being a problem in the future.
(Alternatively, she could commend the Obama administration, Kerry and the State Department's IG for their initiating an effort to review what the current situation is, evaluate changes etc.)
This is far more "reverend wright" than Swiftboating. Even then, most of the Reverend Wright problem had less do with Obama than the email problems have to do with HRC, but just as Obama became stronger by addressing the issues around Reverend Wright, HRC might at least mitigate the negatives of the email issue if she is seen as proposing solutions to avoid similar problems.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)
I agree with your analysis completely, and I commend you also for your constructive suggestions for ways that HRC could possibly minimize the damage arising from her ill-considered decision to conduct all her government correspondence on a private server.
The Boston Globe columnist Brian McGory once wrote, "Elections are long for a reason". They give voters a chance to "kick the tires" and to see what candidates are made of.
HRC's decision to use a private server for State Dept. business created a self-inflicted problem, one that does not reflect well on either her character or her political/strategic judgment. However, she could do much to improve voters' perceptions of her character and her candidacy were she to adopt either of the remedial strategies you suggested.
One learns a lot about a person, and a candidate, by the ways they cope with difficulties.
I will be interested to see how she chooses to address this problem.
(and, yes, it IS a problem. Not a "scandal", but it is a real problem, and one she created for herself, for reasons I will never comprehend).
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Totaly agree with both of you. I wish I could be able to express myself better.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)What is infuriating is how easy this would have been to deal with if HRC had actually cooperated with the State Department. Imagine that before she left, she gave all the email related to work to be archived. It is entirely likely that no one would ever have known that she had her own server -- and the State Department would have gotten less flack for dragging there feet in producing all the email.
The original NYT story was interesting as it seemed clear to me that the State Department had to work pretty hard to get the email. The problem is that there was no way that Obama - or Kerry - was going to directly confront Clinton on this except as a very last resort. (Again the Clinton privilege strikes) I hope that HRC does something along the lines I suggested, but it doesn't sound like her. In fact, even Bill Clinton would be more likely to do something like that. However, at least she has backed up and said that in retrospect it wasn't the best thing to do. That is more an admission of being wrong than on anything else.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You said, "Not that it matters much to me -- if you took away all the scandals, fake or otherwise, I'd still support Bernie over Hillary on policy." Good idea. Take them away. Don't repeat Republican propaganda.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)It matters to a lot of Democrats, which is why her jokes on the subject fall flat.
quickesst
(6,309 posts)...I see many Bernie supporters anymore, and "yes, it sucks". I am reminded of the old adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Well, here's about five thousand words worth below. 
(This arrogant one is mine)
(and this one)
procon
(15,805 posts)Where have you been? If not this, Republicans would invent some other faux outrage as an excuse to lift their skirts, jump up on a chair and start shrieking the name, "Clinton!™". Like the dozens of phony scandals they have tried to pin on her over the years that have all dissolved into nothing, this is more of the same lather, rinse and repeat.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)That was the normal order of things, just like all SoS before her. The law didn't change until 2 years after she left.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)"stop her" and that has caused some mighty strange bedfellows indeed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)line of bullshit. The ever loving war on women is not getting them very far with women.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Arrogance not only describes the email issue, but the entire HRC demeanor. It's an age-old ploy to keep little people in their place, but it's not an attribute I've ever admired. I have a lot of experience with it as I have certain family members that have perfected it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This place never ceases to amaze me.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)horseshit.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Not only arrogance. Matters of integrity care of comes down as well.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Sancho
(9,205 posts)In fact, to many women and immigrants Hillary is very likable. She is just at home in a AA church service as she is in an international meeting with heads of state. She only shows impatience with the CTers (just like birth certificates) because it's a manufactured issue. She is not arrogant to me at all. You don't have to like her - and just as many people report that Bernie is "grating" or "arrogant" as Hillary. Bernie argues at town hall meeting and says "smart ass" things too.
http://www.makers.com/hillary-rodham-clinton
--------------
The email things has been so overblown that it's really getting crazy. Look for yourself:
https://www.facebook.com/TheBriefing2016/videos/vb.415405165314505/452560401598981/?type=2&theater
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-department-confirms-hillary-clinton-email-violated-no-laws-or-policies/21851/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-pn-jeb-bush-emails-and-ebook-20150210-story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/14/ap-exclusive-top-secret-clinton-emails-include-drone-talk
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/14/state-dept-shuts-down-foxs-anonymous-speculatio/204941
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/19/clinton-lawyer-no-undisclosed-e-mails-left-on-server-turned-over-to-fbi/
http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/the-emails-that-dick-cheney-deleted/
zappaman
(20,627 posts)That's a better one word description.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)However, in elections mud sticks when there is uncertainty about a candidate. I wish this election was about issues and not scandals, haircut etc.
Martin Eden
(15,624 posts)If Hillary wins the primary, could this email "scandal" cost Democrats the general election?
I support Bernie over Hillary for a number of reasons, but this email thing isn't even on the list -- except for the danger cited in the subject title of my post.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)And it will be because of corruption in our own party, this insider superdelegate DNC supporting her instead of letting the people choose, it will be because of that kind of insider corruption.
The system is broken and the party leaders are fucking with history and if they succeed we are screwn.