* * *
". . . . Clinton’s big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early
2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust
her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as 'honest and trustworthy.' . . . All this is, I think, a mistaken narrative. . . ."PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that [of the statements it has examined, Clinton had the highest number rated either true or mostly true of the remaining five candidates]. . . . it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards.
"It’s
true, of course, that Clinton is calculating — all politicians are, but
she more than some. She has adjusted her positions on trade and the
minimum wage to scrounge for votes, just as Sanders adjusted his
position on guns. . . .
"[S]he can be infuriatingly evasive. Partly that’s because she’s more hawkish than some Democrats, and partly that’s because she realizes she’s likely to face general election voters in November and is preserving wiggle room so she can veer back to the center then.
"Does that make her scheming and unprincipled? Perhaps, but synonyms might be 'pragmatic' and 'electable.' That’s what presidential candidates do.
"Then there’s the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest, but there’s no sign of any quid pro quo . . . .
"Then there are the State Department emails . . . What was she thinking in using a private email server? Why on earth would she do such a stupid thing?
"[S]he can be infuriatingly evasive. Partly that’s because she’s more hawkish than some Democrats, and partly that’s because she realizes she’s likely to face general election voters in November and is preserving wiggle room so she can veer back to the center then.
"Does that make her scheming and unprincipled? Perhaps, but synonyms might be 'pragmatic' and 'electable.' That’s what presidential candidates do.
"Then there’s the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest, but there’s no sign of any quid pro quo . . . .
"Then there are the State Department emails . . . What was she thinking in using a private email server? Why on earth would she do such a stupid thing?
"Clinton is thin-skinned, private, controlling, wounded by attacks on her and utterly distrustful of the news media. Where Bill Clinton charms, she stews. My bet is that she and her staff wanted to prevent her emails from becoming public through Freedom of Information Act requests.
"All this is self-inflicted damage, which Clinton compounded with evasions and half-truths, coming across as lawyerly and shifty. A more gifted politician might have gotten away with it, but Clinton is not a natural politician. Her warmth can turn to remoteness on the television screen, her caution to slipperiness.
"As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated. . . . Clinton’s private email server may have been penetrated by the Russians, though we don’t know that. But we do know that the official State Department nonclassified email system was indeed penetrated by the Russians, along with the White House unclassified email system.
"The
bottom line: If she had followed the rules and used her official email
address, Vladimir Putin might actually have . . . [read] her
correspondence.
So as we head toward the general election showdown, by all means denounce Hillary Clinton’s judgment and policy positions, but let’s focus on the real issues. She’s not a saint but a politician, and to me this notion that she’s fundamentally dishonest is a bogus narrative."
So as we head toward the general election showdown, by all means denounce Hillary Clinton’s judgment and policy positions, but let’s focus on the real issues. She’s not a saint but a politician, and to me this notion that she’s fundamentally dishonest is a bogus narrative."
* * *
Kristof is not a starry-eyed Clintonista, but he is fair. He gives us a reasonable, if somewhat superficial, analysis of the question of Clinton's basic honesty, taking into account her insecurities, her defensiveness (after decades of attacks), and the realities of being a presidential candidate. I think he's right.
It remains a hurdle for Clinton, along with her self-admitted lack of natural political smoothness. Since she has not picked up those skills from being with Bill Clinton all these years, she's not likely to change that now. So we'll have to rely on those rare glimpses when she lets down her guard and we see the genuine, caring human being -- as well as the formidable knowledge base and the world-stage experience. In a sense, she and Donald Trump have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Let's hope competence trumps personality, that knowledge beats braggadocio.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment