Elizabeth Warren Quietly Moves Into Second Place

[karynnj]

70. I suspect that it is always easier to defend someone else - especially some one you love or admire

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2019, 09:44 AM - Edit history (2)

than yourself. The more personal the accusations the harder to defend yourself.

In 1992, HRC could essentially make the case that 1) she had forgiven Bill, 2) she strongly felt that it was in the past and would have no impact on his ability to govern. She was uniquely in the position to be the one whose forgiveness was needed. As such, she had the power to diminish the impact on Bill's reputation and chances.

When you are defending yourself, there are at least two cases I can think of where it is far better to have relevant others do the defense.

One would be like the Flowers accusation where the only person hurt by the actions (Hillary) was willing to strongly argue that this would not preclude him being an excellent President and (implicitly) that their marriage was ok. Note that this had to be accompanied with Bill Clinton's admission that it happened and was wrong.

The other would be when the accusation is a lie and the person's record in that area is exceptional - to the extent defending yourself with the truth seems like bragging. 2004 was a great case of that. Kerry's fitness reports were included on his website as part of his Navy records. They showed an unusually thoughtful, compassionate leader who fostered unusual loyalty from his men -- and who won two prestigious medals for bravery in addition to his purple hearts. The media had the NAVY records that showed this -- and they should have been the ones to say that whether you agree with his politics or whether you vote for him, he had been an outstanding young officer.

I think the main problem HRC had in 2016 was with everything email related. Here, she screwed up in not leaving the email with the State Department. Then when everything came out, she tried to spin how it would be dealt with -- only to have to alter her statements a few times. If I had to guess, this was the reaction of someone whose image of herself was that of someone who follows rules -- and she does, who had a blind spot on allowing all the oversight that was required. This might have been a reaction to having everything she did put under a microscope.

Years ago, I read parts of Syd Blumenthal's book. There was a story about several Democratic Senators coming to the WH early in Bill's first term. They advised the Clinton's to just put out everything on Whitewater because they had done nothing wrong. Blumenthal recounted that it was Hillary that went ballistic when they left - angry that they would ask that.