I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't like any of the prominent Republican Presidential candidates, and there are some that I actively despise. So I've spent a lot of energy trying to convince myself that Hillary would be a good President, and I'm not doing that well. Aside from the fact that she is too old, too greedy and too Clinton, there is that Clinton knack for unforced errors.
Frank Bruni, a pretty reliable liberal and feminist, has a more in sorrow than anger meditation on her latest misadventure, the private emails she relied on as Secretary of State.
They know what the caricature of them is and they play right into it. They’re familiar with the rap against them and generously feed it. And they tune out their critics, at least the ones they’re not savaging.
Although they’ve long been derided for a surrender of principle when they’re on the hunt for donations, their foundation has raked in money in a manner that opens them up to fresh, predictable accusations of that.
Although they’ve long been cast as greedy — remember the china, flatware and furniture carted out of the White House? — they hit the speaking circuit in a way that only strengthened that impression. Audiences of Wall Street bankers, fees in the hundreds of thousands, extra coddling: They have demanded, received and inevitably been blasted for all of that.
And now, from Michael Schmidt’s story in The Times, we learn that Hillary’s response to her reputation for flouting rules and operating in secrecy was to put what could be construed as a cloak over her communications as secretary of state by using only a private email account.