SO YOU ARE PUT OFF BY HILLARY'S EMAIL...

SO YOU ARE PUT OFF BY HILLARY'S EMAIL...

So you say you are put off by the fact that Hillary used a private email server.  So much so you can't imagine voting for her even in the face of the alternative.
It's not just that, surely, as other Secretaries of State have done the same before her, and one wonders how many others in government have used private email occasionally for business. No, it is that she has not been truthful about all the details, Right?

Okay, let's set aside that some of the details may be relevant to nothing, how many servers were used for example, and others subject to interpretation, like whether and when something was classified.  Indeed, let's set aside the possibility that at least some alleged inaccuracies might reflect imperfect knowledge or recollection and just assume that each and every alleged error represents a bald-faced lie.  A lie to cover up her embarrassment, to mitigate the damage of her error in judgment in furtherance of her political ambition to be the first woman president.

Oh my, what a terrible, awful, ugly sin and how unusual for someone in public life!  Perhaps we should adopt a standing rule in this country that no one who has ever told an untruth to cover or mitigate some error in judgment or personal embarrassment should be allowed to hold public office.  The problem is that might leave us short of candidates.  Are you ready to enter the meat grinder of public life and step into the void, with an oath of total honesty about yourself? Would you qualify under the rule?

Have you ever thought about what it is like to be a public figure in this country, particularly a Democrat running for high office?  I specify Democrat because surely by now you have recognized that the Republican party's principle political strategy is character assassination.  We don't have time here to expound on the reasons for that, but no allegation is too wild or scurrilous to be promoted by the conservative wing of the body politic or rejected by elevated party officials.

Hillary and her husband have been accused of an endless series of crimes, including no small number of murders, each of which a sensation hungry press has given at least temporary voice to.  None, save for a blow job, and now this emailgate has ever been even arguably born out.  But the exonerations get but brief coverage, while the allegations never are allowed to die.  Ordinary people would never accept the scrutiny, slander, and libel that Hillary has lived with.  Is it all that surprising then that she may have sought some modicum of privacy for her email?  Is she entitle to no slack for an ill-advised impulse to self-defence?

"Okay," you say, "it is not just that she lied about it; it shows a lack of judgment."  I agree, as does she.  So, should we have a rule that anyone who has ever committed an error in judgment should be disqualified for high pubic office? One strike and your out, right?

Winston Churchill, who led the British nation to victory in the Second World War, when perhaps literally no one else could have, as Secretary of the Royal Navy was the principle architect of the disastrous World War I amphibious invasion of Turkey at Gallipoli.  Two hundred a fifty thousand allied casualties and an enormous expenditure of resources led to a humiliating withdrawal - a pretty big error in judgment.  What if the British people had believed that an error in judgment disqualified Churchill to be prime minister?  At least there would have been no Brexit vote.

Oh, how about those big speaking fees, you say.  Do you know how long public figures of great respect have collected speaking fees?  You would prefer as President a huckster and reality TV host to a person whose views on matters of great import are worth a quarter of a million dollars a speech?  As First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary has moved in the rarified halls of power globally like few others.  Unlike Trump, who sells hot air in phony marketing schemes that he foists upon the gullible poor, Hillary's perspective on the issues of the day has actual value to people of means and position.  I have not heard of anyone asking for their money back from Hillary.

But you complain she is hiding something as she will not publish the transcripts of her speeches.  Okay, maybe she buttered her audience a bit and would rather not have that get out.  Who doesn't and so what?  But, beyond that what do you think her hosts are buying?  Influence obviously you say.  Is it?  Have you thought it might be her uniquely informed perspectives about other leaders, nations, and global issues of the day that are valuable to her audience?  Perspectives and insights that it might not be useful to have printed in the Washington Post for valid reasons? Trump has no such stock in trade.  All his expertise and experience is in bankruptcy court and his lawyer's offices.

Think for a minute about the world Hillary lives in.  It is alien to you and I.  It is not easy to get our imaginations up to that rarified level of power, energy, and intellect without becoming anoxic.  But you need to try it because you are voting for someone to lead the nation up there where she already is.  Trump, down here with the rest of us, pounding out one line nonsolutions on his Twitter account between visiting his golf courses, doubtless seems more approachable, but remember what happened the last time we elected someone because we could image having a beer with him.  The presidency is not about likeability; it is about ability.

Finally, as to her general credibility.  I think public opinion in this regard is driven more by endless allegations than facts.  Her failing is she tries to be a clever politician but lacks this glibness and insincerity that requires.  Trump seems refreshing because he says whatever comes to his mind, but that is not an asset in a President, particularly when what comes to his mind sounds like it is out of a bar near closing time.  As for truth telling, the media can't keep up with Trumps falsehoods; if the truth crosses his lips, it is a coincidence.

You vote for the narcissistic bomb throwing huckster racist whose entire motivation is inflating his tender ego if it suits you.  I will vote for the steady, dependable rational stateswoman who is qualified for the job and whose sole ambition is to be a great president.  Let's both of us hope she wins.