Should Democrats Panic About Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal

[teflepi]

Should Democrats Panic About Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal?


J. Scott Applewhite/AP/The Atlantic
Democrats are freaking out about Hillary Clinton's latest misstep. Or they're blase. Or, if you ask the right ones, they're feeling rather smug. It all depends on who you ask.

Since the 1990s, reporters have practically made "divisive" a formal part of her name, and now it's Clinton's own party that's divided over how to react to #emailghazi. How will revelations about her use of a "homebrew" private email server affect the 2016 presidential election? Do Democrats just shake it off? Panic completely about her prospects for election? Or maybe quietly start looking around for a backup candidate, while maintaining a brave face? Any worries are naturally magnified by the fact that Clinton has already managed to effectively clear the field, without even declaring her run official. For the time being, there is no plan B.

Late Wednesday, Clinton took to her seldom-used Twitter account to try to stifle some of the discussion. "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible," she wrote. (Illustrating one reason her email subterfuge is so difficult to talk around, her avatar is that famous image with the BlackBerry and the sunglasses. What email account are you using on that device, Madam Secretary?) But that process could take months, the State Department told ABC's Jon Karl, and whatever they release will be culled from ... whatever emails Clinton opted to turn over to the State Department in the first place.

One potential indicator of how the Democratic establishment might react is the Obama White House. The conventional wisdom for months has been that Clinton has to figure out how to distance herself from the president on his least popular policies, without alienating too many of his supporters—a trick made more delicate by the fact that she was his top foreign-policy official. Now, it's the White House distancing itself from Clinton. The Associated Press reports:

The White House counsel's office was not aware at the time Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state that she relied solely on personal email and only found out as part of the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The person said Clinton's exclusive reliance on personal email as the nation's top diplomat was inconsistent with the guidance given to agencies that official business should be conducted on official email accounts.

So the White House would rather not get sucked into this—after all, the administration has plenty of fish in the fryer already. But what about other Democrats and liberals? For the time being, you can find news reports to support almost any conclusion. The conflicting accounts don't mean any of them is wrong—there is a mix of opinions. In the main, progressives seem to be avoiding the urge to panic, but most of the reactions fit into three major camps:

1. The Non-Chalants

What, them worry? This group is a diverse bunch. It includes professional Hillary Clinton defender David Brock, who will stand up for basically anything Clinton does, and liberal journalist Michael Tomasky, who argues that this is mostly a pseudo-scandal cooked up by Republican partisans. It also includes nonpartisan analysts like political scientist Brendan Nyhan, who's skeptical of much long-term electoral impact. More to the point, most elected Democrats seem to have joined the caucus, at least for now. Dave Weigel talked to some congressional Democrats, who mostly reacted with a shrug or intimations of political witch-hunting. One exception was Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent who's considering running for the Democratic nomination himself, and who really seemed to think it wasn't a story: "You're not going to be the sixteenth writer who asks me about Hillary, are you?"

The New York Times found something similar, noting that fewer Democrats are willing to second-guess her than were eight years ago. The case here is straightforward: Clinton's been around many blocks, she's taken hits before, and she'll get through this one. Besides, will voters really care about something as arcane as public-records laws governing emails? All of this could change if top donors started freaking out, which they're not doing publicly. But then again, to what alternative candidate would they flee? Given the Clintons' reputation for long memory of slights, defecting at this stage in the game could be a costly error.

2. The Doomsayers

The lack of an alternative is the germ of the pessimists' case: You've always got to have a backup plan. Some people have been saying so for months, and so this is a sweet moment of I-told-you-so. Take Dick Harpootlian, a former South Carolina Democratic party chair who reporters love for his ability to give highly quotable, often inflammatory comments.

"There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary," he told The Washington Post. "The fact that she’s already turned emails to the Benghazi committee because she was doing official business on it means she’s going to die by 1,000 cuts on this one." Now, why would he say that? Well, it turns out he's backing Joe Biden, one of the potential beneficiaries of a Clinton collapse (though one who's done little to build a campaign apparatus).

Much of the rest of the panic brigade are journalists. Chris Cillizza is sounding alarms. The New Republic's Danny Vinik warns that Clinton is "not ready for prime time" and needs more vetting, which is sort of a funny thing to say about a former first lady, senator, presidential frontrunner, and secretary of state. That's not to say the scandal doesn't raise questions about Clinton's judgment, but is vetting really the problem?

3. The Wait-and-Sees

There is a middle ground between these two extremes: Clinton will most likely be fine, but there ought to be a backup anyway. "There must be a list," writes Jill Lawrence. "Conservatives have correctly discerned that Clinton is the Democrats’ indispensable woman." (But she cautions that "the gubernatorial pickings are exceedingly slim" and the Senate list isn't much better.) Frank Rich is on the same page: "The Democrats ridicule the GOP field at their own peril; they have no field at all."

For the Democratic Party, that may be the crux of the matter. It's not worth panicking when there's no viable alternative. But stay tuned for new wrinkles. Already, there are some awkward new angles, like a report that Clinton's State Department ousted an ambassador for using private email. The next few days will give a chance for the story's natural news cycle to fizzle, or else for Clinton to look even shakier—and for Democrats to start casting about for a backup.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/assessing-the-state-of-democratic-panic-about-hillarys-emails/386911/

[josieposy]

I think some of my friends have indeed decided to already declare allegiance to President Walker.

HAIL WALKER!

[ESF]

The case here is straightforward: Clinton's been around many blocks, she's taken hits before, and she'll get through this one. Besides, will voters really care about something as arcane as public-records laws governing emails?


This is where I am.


I don't like that it happened, but I think it's recoverable.  I don't think the vast majority of people give a shit.

[emisi]

I think the majority of the people who will yelp about it are people who wouldn't vote for her anyway and just want to have something negative about her to scream about. Fox will bring it up for months, but the average person won't care either way.

[teflepi]

Mar 5, 2015 21:27:22 GMT -5 emisi said:

I think the majority of the people who will yelp about it are people who wouldn't vote for her anyway and just want to have something negative about her to scream about. Fox will bring it up for months, but the average person won't care either way.

This is very worrisome, especially since it is sketchy at best.  It is slightly infuriating that more don't care, Rs OR Ds.

[chedifuen]

I don't see this changing many minds. If you like her, you'll get past this a vote for her and vice versa.

[heyjude]

How she responds will dictate what camp I'm in. Her response so far has been less than compelling.

[sushi]

I long ago thought dems would not get this round. My only hope is for minimal damage for 4 years then ew

[heyjude]

State Department now says HRC was in violation of department rules for her entire time as head:

abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-violation-state-dept-policy-years/story?id=29424270

[ESF]

Mar 5, 2015 21:38:57 GMT -5 teflepi said:

Mar 5, 2015 21:27:22 GMT -5 emisi said:

I think the majority of the people who will yelp about it are people who wouldn't vote for her anyway and just want to have something negative about her to scream about. Fox will bring it up for months, but the average person won't care either way.

This is very worrisome, especially since it is sketchy at best.  It is slightly infuriating that more don't care, Rs OR Ds.

It's not that I don't care, I just think it's par for the course in Washington.

As for America, Everybody has the boss that doesn't play by the rules that everyone else has to follow, in government and outside. Yesterday I spent a half an hour sorting through shit to find some document buried in old emails that my boss died save to the network drive that everyone else has to save to. This is the reality for millions of people. So while a boss not putting shit where things belong is nothing like what HRC did at all, people who get their news from a sound bite on CNN in between the Miley Cyrus segment and missing white girl of the week are going to equate the two and move on.

I think we overestimate the extent to which the vast majority of Americans that don't watch Fox News care about the scandal du jour. Particularly when the scandal plays into a well known perception of the candidate.

[ringstrue]

Mar 5, 2015 22:57:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

State Department now says HRC was in violation of department rules for her entire time as head:

abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-violation-state-dept-policy-years/story?id=29424270

"If Clinton has now turned over all emails related to official business, she would be in compliance with State Department rules, an official said. But there is no way to independently verify that she has done that."


Will there ever be a way to confirm that? Depending on the person to forward everything to the secure email is inherently flawed. But so is allowing business communications outside of govt. email. But if she's never even given a govt. email account...

[annieblah]

Mar 6, 2015 7:33:32 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Mar 5, 2015 22:57:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

State Department now says HRC was in violation of departm:ent rules for her entire time as head:

abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-violation-state-dept-policy-years/story?id=29424270

"If Clinton has now turned over all emails related to official business, she would be in compliance with State Department rules, an official said. But there is no way to independently verify that she has done that."


Will there ever be a way to confirm that? Depending on the person to forward everything to the secure email is inherently flawed. But so is allowing business communications outside of govt. email. But if she's never even given a govt. email account...

this can't even be remotely accurate, the email not be assigned w/o her denial of one. I.can see her saying "um, no thanks," but I'm pretty sure evvvvvery employee in gov gets one.

I think most here care but the us at large is what is worrisome.

[IIOY]

HRC will survive this and be the nominee. She has suffered many slings and arrows far sexier than this, and I doubt the average voter is paying attention the details here.

Further, Republicans are about to overplay their hand with multiple Congressional investigations. They need to talk to Newt Gingrich about how this story is going to end.

[Deleted]

As a person who really has no idea yet who I'll vote for and could go with HRC or not, I'm looking at this like I looked at my parents on Monday night when they didn't know their wifi password.
:confused:

[Deleted]

I'm also with IIOY that I think, provided this is the limit of the debacle, she gets through it.

Picture it with me: HRC is on her first Late Show appearance with Colbert, and he asks if she has been issued her own presidential .gov email address and Twitter profile. She and the audience generally chuckle with a touch of awkward, and she responds with an easy smile that yes, she has it. Colbert chuckles easily, then goes totally serious and says, "No really, you DO have an official email and you get why you need it, right?"
If he wouldn't ask that, I'd be yelling it at my screen.

[jeaniebueller]

Between this and the foreign donor scandal at the Clinton Foundation....I am very hesitant to put allegiance behind HRC. And I say this as a democrat who plans on voting for the D candidate.

[pixy0stix]

I've been thinking about this some more. I would be every single other top official has a private email address. I doubt this is going to go anywhere unless people want their own sins exposed.

[ringstrue]

Mar 6, 2015 7:38:09 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Mar 6, 2015 7:33:32 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

"If Clinton has now turned over all emails related to official business, she would be in compliance with State Department rules, an official said. But there is no way to independently verify that she has done that."


Will there ever be a way to confirm that? Depending on the person to forward everything to the secure email is inherently flawed. But so is allowing business communications outside of govt. email. But if she's never even given a govt. email account...

this can't even be remotely accurate, the email not be assigned w/o her denial of one. I.can see her saying "um, no thanks," but I'm pretty sure evvvvvery employee in gov gets one.

I think most here care but the us at large is what is worrisome.

I hope so - that everyone was assigned one and she said no thanks. It would be nice if there was ever actually a real conversation about technology and best practice vs. practical application for our government. 

[IIOY]

Mar 6, 2015 9:20:05 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Between this and the foreign donor scandal at the Clinton Foundation....I am very hesitant to put allegiance behind HRC. And I say this as a democrat who plans on voting for the D candidate.

I don't see this getting much traction, either, at least not with Jane and John Voter.  The general public already assumes that politicians are corrupt as hell and, barring the revelation that Putin or ISIS donated, will shrug this off.

[heyjude]

The problem isn't that the public will shrug off the HRC scandals or not. The problem is that the Dems have no choice but to insist that public shrug off these scandals because we have no one else. If this was 2008 and it was a horserace between HRC and BO again this is when BO would take a lead.

So yes, as a Dem I say this is no big deal, will pass, and all will be fine.

[ESF]

Mar 6, 2015 9:47:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I've been thinking about this some more. I would be every single other top official has a private email address. I doubt this is going to go anywhere unless people want their own sins exposed.

I said this in one of the other threads.

Look, that she had this email and was using it for state business has been known for YEARS because she's been emailing everyone in government with it.  Gawker's been talking about it since at least 2012.  Republicans have had emails from all their investigations.  If this were not par for the course in Washington, House Republicans would have made this an issue in 2012 race, or called for her impeachment. They've been salivating over the foreign donor thing for ages, so it's weird to me that this has been a non-issue for them. So here is no way they would have been able to have this much self control unless (1) it is a complete non-story or (2) they knew it would backfire.

That's why I stand by my tinfoil hat theory that the HRC camp made this a story so she could control it.  Rather than have the media spring it on her at a bad time, she's dangled red meat in front of House Republicans.  They now have no choice but to engage on this topic that they have been avoiding for years.  By the time the election rolls around, news about all the candidates and other prominent republicans'  secret emails will be out, and the House will have spent the last 18 months throwing feces instead of governing. 

I would not be surprised if ultimately, this story helps Democrats pick up some house seats.

[2curlydogs]

Mar 5, 2015 20:26:28 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I think some of my friends have indeed decided to already declare allegiance to President Walker.

HAIL WALKER!

These people are idiots.

Just sayin.

I'm related to several of these sort of people, btw, so it's not personal. Just fact.

[josieposy]

Mar 6, 2015 10:39:21 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Mar 5, 2015 20:26:28 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I think some of my friends have indeed decided to already declare allegiance to President Walker.

HAIL WALKER!

These people are idiots.

Just sayin.

I'm related to several of these sort of people, btw, so it's not personal. Just fact.

I hear you. I also agree.


And I want to watch Spaceballs....

[One Girl In All The World]

Mar 6, 2015 10:38:19 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:47:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I've been thinking about this some more. I would be every single other top official has a private email address. I doubt this is going to go anywhere unless people want their own sins exposed.

I said this in one of the other threads.

Look, that she had this email and was using it for state business has been known for YEARS because she's been emailing everyone in government with it.  Gawker's been talking about it since at least 2012.  Republicans have had emails from all their investigations.  If this were not par for the course in Washington, House Republicans would have made this an issue in 2012 race, or called for her impeachment. They've been salivating over the foreign donor thing for ages, so it's weird to me that this has been a non-issue for them. So here is no way they would have been able to have this much self control unless (1) it is a complete non-story or (2) they knew it would backfire.

That's why I stand by my tinfoil hat theory that the HRC camp made this a story so she could control it.  Rather than have the media spring it on her at a bad time, she's dangled red meat in front of House Republicans.  They now have no choice but to engage on this topic that they have been avoiding for years.  By the time the election rolls around, news about all the candidates and other prominent republicans'  secret emails will be out, and the House will have spent the last 18 months throwing feces instead of governing. 

I would not be surprised if ultimately, this story helps Democrats pick up some house seats.

I have been having trouble figuring out how I feel about all this, but the more I think about it, the more I agree with all of the above - but particularly the bold bit.