…In time for the Democrats to go through a primary and pick a different nominee.
Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely that Clinton will be hurt at all by the email scandal. (Vox summary here, for anyone who needs the scandal explained in a nutshell.)
I don’t like Hillary Clinton; she’s a hawk, and in the conflict within the Democratic party between the banks and the rest of us, there’s no question what side Clinton is on. As for the email scandal, while she may not have technically broken any laws, she has certainly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at the very idea of transparency1 and public oversight – and she did so in the midst of an ongoing scandal about the Bush administration hiding their emails from the public. It’s hard to believe that Democrats can’t field someone better.
In fact, Clinton is so awful that the only way to get me to vote for her is to have her run against a Republican. Because as bad as Clinton is, anyone the Republican party would nominate would be much worse (for instance, it would be the end of US funding for UNFPA, leading to thousands of preventable deaths.)
Furthermore, the last time she ran for office – in the 2008 primary – Clinton was lousy at running a campaign, losing despite starting the primary with enormous advantages. Which is a problem, because the number one thing any Democratic nominee needs to be able to do is run a good campaign and beat the Republican. If they can’t do that, then any other advantages they have – good policy positions, good governance skills – become irrelevant.
Contested, hard-fought primaries are the best way we have of testing for that skill. When we have a contested primary election, we can at least be assured that we’ll wind up with a candidate with a proven ability to run and win a nationwide campaign. With Clinton, we won’t have that. Nor will we have the democracy that – imperfect as it is – having a seriously contested primary provides.
Bah, I say. Bah!
- Although there’s an argument that Clinton’s real problem is that she didn’t follow the conventions of what Ezra Klein calls Transparency Theater. But “she’s no more corrupt than any other high official in her position” isn’t a stirring argument in her favor, really. [↩]
I can’t help but think of Kerry who ran a great campaign in the primaries and a terrible one in the general election. So, yes and no? At least Kerry could run a better campaign than the alternatives, I guess.
I’d love to see Warren run.
Glad to see someone take this position. I’ve been an IT professional for about 30 years now, and my first reaction was “Her own private e-mail server? Who the hell does that?” I know a lot of guys who are really deep into the technology. I don’t know ANYONE who has their own private mail server. I severely doubt that she put in the infrastructure to make it secure to the standards necessary for State Department security. It would be quite complex to install and to maintain and not at all cheap. This showed very poor judgement and a willingness to put her personal concerns over those of the office she held and the country.
Why did she do this? I speculate that – especially after the Lois Lerner scandal (still on-going) at the IRS – it was so that she would have absolute control over the release of the original records of any e-mails she had ever sent.
@Jake – There’s never a guarantee. But even though it’s not a perfect system, I can’t imagine a better system for picking someone who is good at running a national campaign, than holding a contested primary.
Oh, no, I agree with you, Amp. It’s just that Kerry provided such a stark contrast between primary & general that he immediately leaped, fully formed, from my forehead. That was painful, I tell you.
So let’s presume that ex-Sect’y Clinton declares and starts entering primaries.
Who do you see challenging her?
OR
Let’s presume she doesn’t declare. Who do you see entering the primaries? Sen. Warren has demurred numerous times, but I don’t see that stopping her from entering an open field. Anyone else?
Personally, I find it terrifying and disturbing that we’re already discussing the subject of who’s running for an election 20 months away… (No, that’s not a new sensation this year.)
@RonF – Bernie Sanders has talked about running, and has said that he’ll decide one way or the other this month. I am hoping he’ll run, even though I’m not sure he has much shot at winning the primary (too many people scared of the socialist label), because I’d like Clinton to at least have serious left challenger in the primary.
(Hey, is that name a reference to the Garth Nix character? If so, cool!)
Funny. I live in the SF area, and even though I don’t work in tech, I can name at least 20 people of my immediate acquaintance who run their own mail servers.
Just pointing out that “I severely doubt” doesn’t actually constitute anything resembling actual evidence.
Jake:
We have very different recollections of Kerry’s campaign. He was remarkably consistent in his strategy of playing to the media as the “sensible, inevitable” candidate. It’s just that strategy works great in a primary and really badly in a general election against an incumbent president. But it seemed fairly obvious to me, even in the primary, that “I am the sensible one and I’m going to win anyway” was Kerry’s only card.
Barry:
I’m not rooting for Clinton to fail because, honestly, I think she’s our best bet at the moment. The Democrats don’t have that deep a bench, since Obama recruited a lot of our good Governors for executive jobs (good for government, bad for ongoing electoral prospects) and our most presidential senators (Gillibrand, Booker) are still pretty green and, unlike Obama, do not already have a groundswell of support.
(Warren does have the support, but can’t win a general, knows it, and would rather stay in the Senate. Sanders just wants to make a few speeches. O’Malley could maybe work but has little to no name recognition.)
Of course, I’m notoriously bad at electoral prognostication. Pretty much my only success was in predicting Kerry’s strategy in 2004 and betting you that Herman Cain was not going to win in 2012.
yrs–
–Ben
“Of course, I’m notoriously bad at electoral prognostication. Pretty much my only success was in predicting Kerry’s strategy in 2004 and betting you that Herman Cain was not going to win in 2012.”
I would like more information about your sophisticated voting algorithm, sir. :p
I’m having a little trouble parsing A) what Clinton did and B) what you mean. I know plenty of people who run their own email servers in the sense of having their own domain name and software; I don’t know any who physically own the server hardware that runs it (as opposed to paying for space on a web hoster, without a dedicatd server). It sounds like Clinton had the latter, but I’m not sure. And it may be that you know people who do that as well–it’s a bit out of the price range of the folks I know, but that may be different in different industries.
Chris: My prediction method is “when Amp says something ridiculous, bet him a dollar.”
yrs–
–Ben
Timothy Lee at VOX has been hitting on the security angle pretty hard:
Clinton says she had no email security breaches. But she doesn’t know that. – Vox
Why Clinton’s private email account was a danger to national security – Vox
To be fair, as I recall, I never thought it likely that Cain would win. It’s just that if he did win, I thought that at least I’d win a bet, so it wouldn’t be an entirely bad day.
I know a handful of people who run their own email servers, hardware and all. It’s not that tough to do. Security, especially for someone who’s well known, is a bit more involved but still not that hard for a knowledgeable person. Snowden managed it, I have to believe Clinton had the budget to pay for someone who could handle that. Whether or not she did is a very different question and one that I can’t begin to answer.
I’m afraid that if she washes out the most likely front-runner will be Joe Biden, who is nearly as loathesome as she is. On “intellectual property” (“smash-n-grab at Macy’s”; “download a car”) he’s ultra-super-duper hawk. He’s also a longtime hawk on military affairs with close ties to the national security establishment.
Kevin, I don’t think Biden would scare away possible competition the way Clinton has.
You’re probably right. But if she makes it through the early primaries before washing out, she may already have scared the strongest ones away for him.
I don’t want Warren or Sanders to be president — because I don’t think they (particularly Warren) are strong enough on politics. The last six years have shown us (both positively and negatively) the importance of the president being able to get things done, to the point where I’d rather have a president who accomplishes good things than one who proposes great things. And that’s where Clinton shines, at least, more brightly than any other names I keep seeing (except Biden, I guess)
Of course, a president who accomplishes great things is better still; I’d like both Warren and Sanders to be heard in the Oval Office, I just think they can do so more usefully by not occupying it.
(My dream ticket is Schweitzer/Warren, but I know that isn’t going to happen.)
Man, I had hopes for Schweitzer, but I’m pretty sure he’s out.
@Harlequin – Yep, it’s a reference to the Garth Nix character! I use it as a handle in a few different places, and it’s always fun to see who gets that reference.
@Hershele Ostropoler – I agree with you about Warren (plus, as a Massachusetts resident, I selfishly want her to stay as our senator). Sanders, though, has been in politics for a long time (as a mayor, representative, and senator). He’s pretty good at working the system.
I call bullshit on the security angle. Email is insecure by its nature. It’s the equivalent of sending a postcard. So if you’re using it for anything remotely confidential, you’ve got a security hole, no matter who is running your server.
The issue here, as the main link suggests, is transparency. If Clinton wants emails to disappear, and she controls the server, then they disappear. If the State Department controls it, then somebody in addition to Clinton needs to be corrupt.
Especially given the perception (“I’m glad you asked me that question…” *permasmile*) of her as a self-serving Official Happy Talker. I mean, who wouldn’t trust someone who “landed under rocket fire in Bosnia”? And within microseconds, her claim to have deleted “personal emails with my husband” came up against Bill’s statement that “I don’t use email.”
Frankly, I wouldn’t believe her statement that the sun rises in the east without a signed affadavit from three astronomers.
E-mail in transit is not all that secure, unless – as I should hope is the practice at the State Department for sensitive mail – it’s encrypted in some fashion. And yeah, I know there’s encryption and there’s encryption. But e-mail servers, OTOH, where e-mail you send and receive reside long-term, can be unsecure, somewhat secure or very secure.
So far I’ve seen Warren, Sanders, Biden and Schweitzer. Warren won’t win a general nation-wide election. Sanders – the man has called himself a Socialist. That’ll work in a very few States in the U.S. but makes him permanently unworkable nationwide. Biden? I don’t see him winning either, although he might be able to win the nomination. Schweitzer I don’t know anything about – would I be wasting my time to check him out?
So who? Clinton by … default? That somehow doesn’t sound like a winning strategy.
At this point in 2007, iirc, none of the pundits and “political consultants” on TV and in the papers seemed to think Obama could win either the primary or a general election. In fact, Hilary was considered a shoe-in. And – according to what was reported then (iirc) – one reason Clinton was so hesitant to drop out of the race, even after it became clear that it would take a miracle for her to win the primary, was that she and her advisers were convinced that McCain would make mincemeat of Obama in a general election.
Schweitzer is the only presidentable Democrat I can think of whom I have faith in as a politician and who can share a ticket with Warren — O’Malley/Warren, Biden/Warren, and Clinton/Warren all have the same geographical problem, in ascending order of severity.
Maybe Gregoire/Warren, obvious electoral obstacle aside? I don’t know anything about Chris Gregoire.
EDIT: Actually, the obvious electoral issue might not arise; I suspect a trivial number of people, at most, would vote for a ticket with one woman but not one with two.
Absolutely correct. If Clinton wasn’t (and isn’t) using good encryption on her email… That’s some incredibly bad judgment.
Yup. That’s why I have to believe she hired somebody (or somecompany) qualified to keep her servers very secure. If not, terrible judgment.
My parents run their own server. It’s just on a dedicated desktop. Unless I’m displaying some real computer ignorance here (possible, I don’t pay that much attention), it’s not that hard to do.
Mandolin, when I said that it would be quite complex to install and maintain one’s own e-mail server, I was including the concept of security. Setting it up is one thing. Setting up a firewall, IPS/IDS services, keeping up on various attacks, etc., is where things get interesting.
Also, when you’re talking about security, you worry less about what is likely than about what is possible. It’s a level of constructive paranoia which many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around.
A major international politician is going to be subject to all kinds of surveillance and attacks which most of us deal with simply by being small-fry, and not worth the trouble. Non-public, private people have the luxury of being able to hire anyone we like for security. People who work high in the US Government do not have that luxury, because then your major vulnerability is the security people. Are they technically among the best? Can they be suborned? Have they been?
There’s a good reason you should do thorough background checks on people who maintain critical parts of your infrastructure, and a good reason those background checks should be done by people with the skill and resources to know or find out things most other people can’t know or find out. Also, it means that the government’s security people can’t do countersurveillance.
Maintaining your own stuff end-runs around all of that. If you hire a private contractor, it’s very likely that none of that is getting done to the level that it should be.
Grace
Their server used to have periodic attacks (may still, I don’t pay attention anymore), and it was set up to repel them, but yes. Not to a politician’s standard.
Amp@27: The phrase you’re looking for is “shoo-in”, not “shoe-in”. It refers to the verb “to shoo”, not footwear.
Here in the UK public (and non-public) bodies lose laptops, cds/dvds, and thumbdrives containing unencrypted sensitive data with depressing frequency. I doubt the authorities in the US are any more competent.
Encryption need to be done at the client. Encrypting at the server is like putting postcards into a safe after they’ve been through the post. It’s too late.
If encryption is done right, then server security becomes largely irrelevant. You could post your emails to the web. Nobody can read them.
Tamme – Oh, that makes sense, now that I think about it. Thanks for the correction. :-)
Where I work the entire drives on each laptop is encrypted. Data, software, everything.
How do you boot?
There’s a decryption routine in the boot record. When the box first powers up I have to enter a key or it won’t proceed. I don’t know what happens if I enter the key in wrong a few times, but I suspect it’s not good.
Then – to be pedantic – part of the drive isn’t encrypted, namely the boot record. Absolute whole disk encryption is possible. You either boot off some other media, such as a thumb drive (which you carry with you at all times, for security), or relocate the decryption routine into firmware. Either way, firmware remains vulnerable to an evil maid attack if you ever let the laptop out of your site. Evil maids have other options, such as installing physical key-loggers, or just bugging the office and inferring the key from the sound of the keystrokes.
Given these weaknesses and others, I don’t see that there is much to be gained by whole disk encryption over the standard Linux solution I use on my home PC, which is that the entire disk is encrypted minus a small boot partition, which is obviously a lot more than the boot record.
Same here.
It shouldn’t be bad. If your key isn’t good enough to keep out a casual attacker no matter how many times he tries, then its no good. A serious attacker will bypass the boot process and attack the encryption in an environment he or she controls. Or employ an evil maid. Or rubber hoses, etc.
I favor the evil maid approach.