Last week Common Sense predicted that the scandal of Hillary Clinton’s hidden emails would not derail her campaign for the presidency. The story has moved on, somewhat. She has now offered an explanation – a rather pathetic one – for not using a government email address. She found it “convenient” to have just one email address.
We have learned that State has not released even one email relating to Libya during her trip to Libya in 2011. We have not learned if this was because they were not among the emails passed to the State Department by the Clintons or whether they have been withheld by State, perhaps because of security concerns. (It is theoretically possible, though ridiculously unlikely, that she did not send any emails during this period). We have learned that Clinton handed over hard copies of her emails, with the meta-data withheld and ensuring that it is much harder to search the documents. We have learned that the Clinton team deleted half of her emails and that almost as many related to state.gov domain addresses, which the State Department already had. Only 5% of her emails are new information released to the government. But Common Sense stands by the prior prediction. Hillary Clinton will still be the Democratic candidate for president. The Party does not seem to have any alternatives.
Former Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley is in the race, but is widely seen as a weak candidate laying down a marker for some other position. Senator Bernie Sanders and former Senator Jim Webb may enter the race, but merely to draw attention to particular policy proposals. Joe Biden may run, but is already 72, a rather advanced age to be contemplating a first term. His prior campaigns revealed him to be an undisciplined candidate: prone to gaffes is the nice way of putting it. He is a buffoon. Credible candidates are not going to challenge Clinton.
If she were to stumble or change her mind, then other candidates are available. But the Democratic Party’s two great reformers – Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo – have been wounded by surprisingly difficult re-election campaigns. They have alienated liberal purists.
The person who has not alienated purists is the paleo-liberal populist, Senator Elizabeth Warren. If she were to challenge Clinton she would set liberal hearts fluttering, but ultimately crash and burn. She has shown no interest in challenging the Inevitable One, and has left it rather late to establish the fundraising and campaign infrastructure that she would need. If Clinton stumbles or falls she will probably join the scramble to replace her, but she is likely to leave moderates and independents feeling nervous.
Other candidates from 2008, such as Bill Richardson and John Edwards, have damaged their reputations in the years since then. Even Mark Warner – who was very popular as Governor of Virginia and has since been serving in the Senate – experienced a setback when his expected landslide re-election campaign turned into a nail biter. It is conventional wisdom among Democrats that, in 2004, President Bush was beatable. They blame John Kerry for failing to win that election, so he would not be acceptable to primary voters.
One of America’s great parties has a remarkably thin bench. While Republicans will face a rowdy debate between numerous substantial figures Democrats will have an uncontested primary.
Quentin Langley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Bedfordshire Business School as well as a freelance columnist published in the UK and all parts of the US. He blogs on social media and crisis communications at brandjacknews.com
Filed under: U.S. Politics
