The End Of Hillary's 140-Character Campaign
Hillary Clinton, by some accounts, wanted the luxury of waiting as long as possible before officially becoming a 2016 candidate for president. There were good reasons for her to wait, the most prominent being that she could pick and choose which day-to-day political issues to address, and which she could safely ignore for the time being. So the extent of her campaigning, so far, has largely been an occasional Twitter message. It seems, however, that this luxury is about to come to an end. Hillary's soon going to have to give the public more than 140 characters, whether she officially tosses her hat in the ring or not.
Since the beginning of the year, Hillary has tweeted a grand total of 14 times (or, roughly, twice a week). Most of these were pretty innocuous. Only a handful could even be labelled political in nature, in fact. Two of these stand out, one of which worked perfectly for her, and one which did not. The first was a snarky takedown of the anti-vaccine crowd, and it worked exactly as designed. It thrust Hillary into the debate raging over the Disneyland measles outbreak, staked out a clear pro-vaccine position, and gave the media precisely what they wanted. The second one, however, is turning out to be woefully inadequate. Hillary is now rumored to be about to speak publicly about the whole email fracas, to make up for all the questions those 140 characters didn't answer.
Figuring out when to launch a presidential campaign is always a balancing act that professional political consultants get paid a lot of money to navigate. Hillary Clinton's calculations on this question are more complex than most. She's got a lot of pros and cons to weigh, in other words. Jumping in early would mean she wouldn't have the luxury of ignoring current political events, as she'd be pressured to stake out one position or another on each of them. Jumping in too late, however, would make her look like she expected a coronation rather than a campaign for the Democratic nomination. Or, according to others, jumping in too early would look like she's expecting that coronation. As I said, it's a tricky tightrope for her to walk.
But at some point, dithering over the question of when to jump in begins to look like an overabundance of caution. Call it Clintonian triangulation, perhaps. The average voter wonders why any candidate wouldn't want to get in the race as soon as possible, to let the public fully know what the candidate stands for on any and all issues. Campaign consultants, however, know that this leads to possible pitfalls -- staking out positions which turn out later to either have been not adequately thought out, or just plain wrong. Avoiding taking such positions increases the chances that the candidate won't stumble badly over any of them too early in the campaign season.
So far, this has largely worked for Hillary Clinton. She remains quiet on many of the mini-tempests that the 24-hour political media loves to obsess over, and thus she does herself no harm with either side in any of the micro-debates. This stands in stark contrast to the campaign she ran back in 2008, however, when she was the self-professed "person you'd want answering the phone at 3:00 AM." If a scary phone call did happen at the White House at such an early hour, we were told, Hillary would not only be ready to answer it, but she'd also readily have the right answer to whatever problem the call was about. The ad projected decisiveness, for two tactical reasons. It was meant to portray Barack Obama as indecisive and inexperienced, and it was meant to directly address any qualms the public might have over electing the first woman president. Hillary would be as tough and forceful as any man, even in the wee hours of the morning.
Which is why, to me at least, the whole email "scandal" is notable for how slowly and cautiously the Hillary team has reacted. Put aside any questions raised by her use of a private email server while secretary of state -- we'll all have plenty of time to hash out all those details as they come out. Also set aside any political damage this may do her in the long run. Again, we'll have plenty of time to figure all that out later. What is of interest to me, so far, is the gap between when the scandal broke and when Hillary is going to fully address it.
This gap should be seen as worrisome to Democrats for a couple of reasons, both having to do with the "Clinton brand" (which includes her husband as well). When Bill Clinton was in office, he was often criticized for being "poll-driven," or paying too much attention to "focus groups." Before Bill would take a position, he'd allow his political team to poll-test it within an inch of its life, to divine what the public truly thought about the various options being considered. This was seen as being too influential to the path Bill eventually chose to take. Now, any campaign for a political office is also going to do the same sort of polling, and every candidate is going to pay varying degrees of attention to such data. That's a modern fact of political life. It is inescapable, but at the same time it is usually conducted so far behind the scenes that it is not visible to the public at large. It only really becomes an issue for the candidate if the media chooses to focus on it. And that usually only happens when the media is left hanging because the candidate is being too cautious about taking a clear stance on any issue.
The problem for Hillary now is that Bill was really only accused of being so driven by polls after he got elected president. In his first successful presidential campaign, he had to take bold stances, because he was a relative unknown on the national stage. He didn't have the luxury of waiting to see what the public's consensus was, he just dove in and forcefully stated his various positions. It wasn't until after he was in the White House that the caution began to be a story, in other words. Hillary, to put it bluntly, does not have that kind of luxury. She's been in the public eye for over two decades now, and has been a senator and a secretary of state in the meantime. She is as far from an unknown as can be imagined, in fact. So while her natural inclination (gained through both her own experience and her husband's) is now to step very cautiously, she is going to have to abandon this caution to some degree or another if she's going to become an effective candidate.
The other contrast to the "Clinton brand" that is a bit surprising is how slow to react Hillary has been on an issue aimed directly at her. This is not a question of kids being vaccinated, or even some foreign policy question that Clinton could be forgiven for dodging for the moment. The emails are all about her personally, not some political question with a built-in choice about whether it needs to be adequately addressed or not. And that's what's surprising, considering what a pioneer her husband was in the firefighting aspect of presidential campaigning. Bill Clinton's first campaign is where the term "war room" morphed in meaning from that Pentagon room shown in Dr. Strangelove (where questions of nuclear annihilation were gravely pondered) to a purely political definition, one which boasted a lighting-fast response to any whiff of scandal surrounding Bill. It was damage control on steroids. When there were scandalous stories about Bill's relations with certain women (called "bimbo eruptions" at the time), the Clinton campaign would have a response before that evening's news even ran the story. This way, the public was given both the question and the answer at the same time. It was a brilliant strategy, especially for a man who was eventually shown to be seriously flawed in his judgment in what was proper behavior with women who were not actually his wife (and that's putting it about as politely as I can).
Getting back to Bill's wife, though, it seems that Hillary Clinton needs a refresher lesson in the whole war room strategy concept. This is another drawback to staying officially out of the race for too long, because it means her full campaign structure doesn't yet exist. There are a lot of empty chairs right now at Hillary's war room table, in other words. This might be one reason why the delay in addressing the email situation has been so long. There's another danger to this lack of campaign staff, and it was on full display this weekend. When there are no official campaign spokesmen and spokeswomen, the vacuum is filled by opportunists. Which is why Lanny Davis has been on television for the past few days. When the candidate doesn't speak for herself, there are others ready and willing to unofficially speak for her -- whether she wants such help or not, and whether these efforts ultimately help her or hurt her.
The only way to get control of the situation is to, well, get control of the situation. Hillary Clinton has to take the reins for herself, and get out there and answer questions about the emails. If she weathers the storm successfully, perhaps she can then retreat back (for a while, at least) to waging a 140-character campaign on all the issues not directly involving her, but this episode should prove to her that this is simply not a viable option when the political issue is so personal. Her previous political ad, after all, did not promise that when the 3:00 AM phone call happened that she'd get back to us by noon next Thursday with her answer. Taking political potshots via Twitter is a lot more fun and a lot easier than actually running a presidential campaign, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the luxury of doing so is now mostly over for Hillary Clinton.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Maybe it's time to start seriously considering what a Biden presidency would be like ...
Excellent analysis, CW!! :D
So dead on balls accurate..
Hillary's attitude regarding this latest scandal exposes her fatal flaw..
She believes that the coming primary IS a coronation and that she really IS a queen..
"Rules are for thee and not for me.."
"Let them read my decrees in 140 characters."
"Answering questions is for common people, not for royalty"
That is Hillary Clinton in a nutshell...
The real Clinton is being exposed..
She won't run..
And, if I am wrong and she does run, she won't win..
Because Joe and Jane Six-Pack are sick of being looked down their noses by Democrats..
Liz,
Maybe it's time to start seriously considering what a Biden presidency would be like ...
"If only... If only...."
-Hades, HERCULES
:D
Michale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/when-it-comes-to-changing-politics-will-hillary-clinton-lead-by-example/2015/03/09/8753f4aa-c679-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
This is Hillary's dilemma..
She knows all the right words to say..
But when it comes to practicing what she preaches???
Game over...
Michale
Michale,
Why does it have to be so beyond the realm to think about what a Biden presidency might look like?
That's more a garden variety rhetorical question than anything else. But, still ... I'd like to see a serious debate about that.
I mean, it would be interesting to compare and contrast the personal and professional styles of Obama and Biden - far more interesting than endless psychoanalyzing about what makes a Clinton tick. But, I see none of this in the media, anywhere.
Take, for example, how each man relates and interacts with people - exact polar opposites.
Release the CARVILLE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb2zIR2rvRQ
Release the CARVILLE!
Hay Carville...
The 90s called.. They want their PR strategy back...
-Ron Fournier
:D
Michale
Liz,
I agree that Joe Biden is an affable and likable guy and has more charm and people-skills in his left pinky nail than Obama has in his entire body..
But Hillary is the flavor of the month and as long as Democrats prep for her coronation, then everyone else is non-existent..
It's the Democrat Party.. It's how they are.. It's what they do...
Michale
Ya'all gotta admit, the email scandal really has legs..
Anything that forces the Clinton Juggarnaut to actually DEAL with said issue HAS to be a real issue..
Wouldn't ya'all agree???
Michale
Who else has this private E-mail albatross round their ?
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Chris Christie
Rick Perry
Bobby Jindal
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
and that's just the Republicans!!!
Use of private E-mails may violates a patchwork if federal, state and local statutes, but it's uniformly winked at. I doubt any viable candidate of either party is clean on this one.
File this under Shocked I tells yah, shocked!!!!
Michale,
I have to give you credit, A LOT of credit.
You are the first and only person with whom I have had any conversation with about Joe Biden who hasn't always resorted to the asinine media storyline on Biden - I'm not going to say it, you KNOW what I mean.
Even bloggers for whom I have the greatest respect join the rest of the media in never missing an opportunity to devolve into that nonsense.
So, again, a big tip of the hat to you Michale for the refreshing respect you always give to Vice President Biden. It is appreciated more than I could possible say.
M-
Bibi didn't a local bounce out of his Congressional Address.
What do Obama and Neytanyahu have in common?
Persistently underwater with their electorates. He may yet pull a coalition out of his tuchus, but popular he ain't.
TS,
Who else has this private E-mail albatross round their ?
If one looks at ALL the facts and not just the cherry picked ones....
No one...
Michale
You are the first and only person with whom I have had any conversation with about Joe Biden who hasn't always resorted to the asinine media storyline on Biden - I'm not going to say it, you KNOW what I mean.
In all fairness, I have also been known to pile on every now and again...
But, Joe Biden is a likable guy.. Most of his faux pas deal with simply being brutally honest...
Whereas Clinton and Obama are politically calculating (to put it nicely... Evil to put it not so nicely) Joe is a truly a "nice guy"...
I could sit down with Joe and shoot the shit over beers..
With Obama or Clinton, I'de always be looking over my shoulder wondering who is going to shove the knife in my back..
Michale
Persistently underwater with their electorates. He may yet pull a coalition out of his tuchus, but popular he ain't.
Perhaps not...
But NO ONE doubts Natanyahu's loyalty to Israel..
The same can't be said for Obama and America...
Michale
As I said above.. The simple fact that Clinton is actually DEALING with Email-Gate shows how much of a threat she thinks it is...
Michale
If one looks at ALL the facts and not just the cherry picked ones....
Allow me to show you all the facts..
Yes, many MANY Republicans have occasionally used private email addresses...
Hillary Clinton EXCLUSIVELY used a private email address as SecState...
Not only did she EXCLUSIVELY use a private email address as SecState, she set up her OWN mailservs to do so...
Now, there is only ONE SINGLE REASON to set up one's own mailserv..
ONE reason and ONE reason only..
To have complete and total control of your email data..
Now, for you and me, that's no big deal....
For someone of Clinton's stature and responsibility, PLUS her personal history and reputation.....???
The only conclusion possible is that she has something to hide...
Michale
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/credentials-hillary-press-avail-needed-be-request-24-hours-ahead-time_881931.html
And once again, Hillary games the system to limit transparency...
Get used to it, my fellow Weigantians..
This is just a taste of things to come...
Michale
The same can't be said for Obama and America...
Actually, it can be said that Obama's loyalty to and love for America is unshakable, as it is for most Americans and for those of us who still believe in the promise of America.
What cannot be said is that PM Netanyahu's leadership and policies have made the existence of the state of Israel anywhere near secure. He should thank the Gods that his country has such a strong defender and protector as the United States of America. He might also show some real respect for that relationship, now and again.
What can be said is that Netanyahu's leadership and policies are steadily decreasing the likelihood that Israel survives as both a Jewish and democratic state. And, for that reason alone, he does not deserve to win another election as Prime Minister of Israel.
I respect your opinion, Liz...
I simply disagree with it and have the facts to back up that disagreement..
Obama and Netananyahu's critics are following a path of appeasement..
With regards to Obama, we have seen it with Iran, with China and with Russia...
Appeasement NEVER works and invites the VERY behavior that the appeasement was designed to prevent..
Michale
Michale,
Why do you insist on pre-judging the agreement that the P5+1 are negotiating with Iran?
If a good deal can be reached that lasts even 10 years, then Iran's nuclear program will be inspected and monitored and verified to not be building a nuclear arsenal or it will face certain punishment, including the use of military force.
What is your alternative policy to what the Obama/Biden administration is now following with Iran?
By the way, what facts back up your assertion that PM Netanyahu is not threatening the survival of Israel as Jewish and democratic state?
Michale,
Am I to understand that, in your opinion, any foreign policy short of resorting to the use of some form of military force, is the definition of appeasement?
The biggest clue to Obama's foreign policy ineptitude is that he wants to make a deal with Iran..
IRAN!!???
THE world's supplier of terrorism....
It's like willing to make a deal with Nazi Germany, KNOWING about the death camps...
It's ludicrous...
It's the epitome of appeasement...
And, in the annals of BAD IDEAS, it's the WORST idea possible..
Michale
Why do you insist on pre-judging the agreement that the P5+1 are negotiating with Iran?
Who's "pre-judging"???
Iran has ALREADY violated the agreement twice...
Regardless of that, ANY deal that drops the sanctions AND give Iran free-reign to develop nuclear after a set time is a bad idea..
Worst case scenario for Iran, they have to cool their heels for ten years, then they get the sanction dropped AND they can build their nukes...
Now, you tell me.
Is THAT a "good deal"??
Well, yea.. It's an AWESOME deal...
For Iran...
For the region and the rest of the world??
Not so much..
Am I to understand that, in your opinion, any foreign policy short of resorting to the use of some form of military force, is the definition of appeasement?
Nope..
The sanctions were working fine..
They were working so well, they BROUGHT Iran to their knees..
NOW is the time to INCREASE the sanctions..
Not remove them...
Michale
Iran has ALREADY violated the agreement twice...
How so?
The sanctions were working fine..
To do what?
What do you presume to be the purpose of those sanctions? These sanctions, by the way, were the most muscular set of sanctions ever put on Iran by the international community, a direct result of the hard diplomatic work of the Obama/Biden administration, I would hasten to add.
While we're on the subject of Iran, ahem ...
Here is a link to the statement made by Vice President Biden on the open letter to Iran's leadership penned and signed by 47 Republican senators ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/09/statement-vice-president-march-9-letter-republican-senators-islamic-repu
Iran has ALREADY violated the agreement twice...
How so?
The 24 March deadline is the THIRD deadline from the deal Obama made with Iran..
Iran ignored the first two deadlines, yet they still got sanction relief..
What do you presume to be the purpose of those sanctions? These sanctions, by the way, were the most muscular set of sanctions ever put on Iran by the international community, a direct result of the hard diplomatic work of the Obama/Biden administration, I would hasten to add.
And they threw away all that hard work by giving Iran relief from the sanctions at the EXACT moment the sanction were having the desired effect..
Here is a link to the statement made by Vice President Biden on the open letter to Iran's leadership penned and signed by 47 Republican senators ...
Yea, I also have a link to a letter from Senator Biden to President Bush, excoriating Bush for trying to make a deal with Russia without Congress..
You'll just have to wait until I get home to read it.. :D
Michale
I can hardly wait.
At least Senator Biden sent the letter to President Bush and not the Kremlin. :)
At least Senator Biden sent the letter to President Bush and not the Kremlin. :)
He sent it as the GOP sent it..
An open letter published in the media...
When all is said and done, there is one inescapable point.
Your entire position relies on the belief that Iran can be trusted..
Now, forgive me.. But considering that Iran is the world's premiere Terrorism State, don't ya think that trust might be an issue??
Michale
But considering that Iran is the world's premiere Terrorism State, don't ya think that trust might be an issue??
I mean, seriously.. Look at it.
Ya'all won't trust Republicans one iota, even though they are fellow Americans.
And yet, ya'all are going to implicitly trust a TERRORIST STATE with the survival of an ENTIRE COUNTRY at stake!??
Doesn't that seem... oh I dunno.. a tad whacked??
Michale
Michale,
Iran has not earned our trust, not by a long shot.
That is why this negotiation towards a deal that would be effective at preventing a nuclear arms breakout by Iran is so important.
Iran has quite a long way to go when it comes to earning the trust of the international community.
Doesn't that seem... oh I dunno.. a tad whacked??
Well, something is a tad whacked ... :)
Today, The Washington Post points out Federal E-mail regulations are concerned with 2 issues: 1) preservation of records and 2) security.
In direct reference to H. Clinton, WAPO noted
"the legal requirement to immediately preserve e-mails from nongovernment e-mail accounts was not made mandatory until nearly two years after she stepped down."
Take out the spaces and that fits in s Tweet.
Maybe this issue isn't destined to go anywhere outside of party faithful?
see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/hillary-clintons-emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/
"the legal requirement to immediately preserve e-mails from nongovernment e-mail accounts was not made mandatory until nearly two years after she stepped down"
You are missing the point.. Again..
We're not talking about what's "legal"...
We're talking about Hillary Clinton and Transparency..
If there is nothing to it, why is the Clinton Juggernaut addressing it??
Michale
If there is nothing to it, why is the Clinton Juggernaut addressing it??
If there is nothing to it, why are DEMOCRATS pressing Hillary over it??
"the legal requirement to immediately preserve e-mails from nongovernment e-mail accounts was not made mandatory until nearly two years after she stepped down"
If she has nothing to hide WHY was she using a non-government email in the first place??
Michale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/not-so-fired-up-about-hillary-clinton/2015/03/09/6488da40-c6a5-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html
Say what ya want...
But it's Democrats who have a big problem with Hillary's coronation...
Not just Republicans
Michale
M-35
No, you're missing the point.
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”
and
The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.”
No requirement for transparency, Clinton isn't posting to Facebook. Communications must be secure and must be archived. As the head of agency, she calls the shots on what is secure and how it is to be implemented. So long as E-mails were secure AND archived, use or non-use of government internet is basically irrelevant. Policy was vague, it was tightened up after she left State.
Why was she using non-government E-mail? Budgets woes. Ever use government electronic networks or computers outside the military sphere? I have, and a lot of it was out of date, slow, and unreliable compared to what I had at home. My kid had better stuff. Come to think of it my teen age kids had stuff than I had....
I sense the air going out of this particular trial balloon. Unless Hillary can't verify the archives exist, or that it can't be accessed as required by relevant law, this looks just another factoid fest for conspiracy theorists.
No requirement for transparency,
Other than Clinton's own words.....
So long as E-mails were secure AND archived, use or non-use of government internet is basically irrelevant.
But THAT is the point.
We ONLY have Clinton's word that the emails were secure and were archived..
THAT is the entire point..
Would TRUST Cheney's words if he said anything similar??
Of course you wouldn't..
So why should I trust Clinton's word??
Michale
NOW we have Hillary saying that running her own server was a "matter of convenience"..
What an TOTAL crock o crap that is..
If you want convenience, you go with GMAIL or YAHOO...
If you want TOTAL and COMPLETE control, you set up your own Mailserv...
Clinton is just digging herself deeper and deeper..
Michale
I have got to stop composing on the tablet....so portable, so impossible to edit.
Ever see a deer in headlights??
http://tinyurl.com/p6p7cay
That's what it looks like...
Michale
How did we manage to get back to Hillary?
Geesh.
I sense the air going out of this particular trial balloon. Unless Hillary can't verify the archives exist, or that it can't be accessed as required by relevant law, this looks just another factoid fest for conspiracy theorists.
And all Weigantians (save one) will be ready, willing and able to just take Hillary's word for it...
I have ta say, I admire such blind devotion....
"No, not really.. I can't back that up..."
-Dr Evil, THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME
:D
Michale
How did we manage to get back to Hillary?
She just did a Press Conference where, basically she said, "FRACK YOU, AMERICANS!!! The Rules Don't Apply To Me!!!"
Ya know.. Hillary just being a Clinton prep'ing for her coronation...
And ya'all buying it, hook line and sinker...
Michale...
And the lies continue...
At a press conference on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said the server that housed her emails while she was secretary of state (that was reportedly housed at her home in New York) was set up for President Bill Clinton. She also said that some of the "personal" emails she deleted were between her and her husband.
But just before Hillary began the press conference at the United Nations building, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bill Clinton does not use email.
"The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman," WSJ reported. "After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use — @presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn't use email himself, Mr. McKenna said."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-said-she-emailed-with-bill-but-the-thing-is-.../article/2561325
How many lies are ya'all going to defend??
Remember, it's going to be 18 months before the election..
Ya'all should pace yerselves... Ya might get wore out defending Hillary thru all her scandals...
:^\
Michale
Oh, that.
Oh, that.
Yep...
It's gonna be a loooonnngg 18 months for ya'all, defending Queen Hillary's coronation....
Michale
There you go again, Michale ... lumping me in with "ya'all".
I hate it when you do that.
Clintons and controversy: The circus is back in town
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-circus-is-back-in-town/2015/03/10/d941ea78-c74c-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
It's gonna be a fun year and a half.. :D
Michale
There you go again, Michale ... lumping me in with "ya'all".
I hate it when you do that.
Fair enough..
When ya start holding Hillary accountable for her bonehead plays...
I'll sincerely render my apologies...
Michale
How do you propose that I hold Hillary accountable.
I prefer just to ignore her.
How do you propose that I hold Hillary accountable.
The same way you hold Republicans accountable when THEY make bonehead plays..
Michale
I just ignore them, too.
I just ignore them, too.
:D
Michale