Hillary Clinton May Have Lost a Campaign Weapon

Clinton’s experience as secretary of State now cannot be mentioned without raising questions of pay-to-play and deleted emails

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her PDA upon departure in a military C-17 plane from Malta bound for Tripoli, on October 18, 2011.
National Journal
April 27, 2015, 2:45 p.m.

Too bad for Hillary Clinton there wasn’t a presidential election on Feb. 2, 2013—the day after she stepped down as secretary of State.

At the time, Clinton enjoyed approval ratings near 70 percent, a number seen by President Obama only in the first months of his administration, and significantly higher than Clinton has had in more than two decades in the national spotlight (with the brief exception of right after her husband was impeached in the Monica Lewinsky scandal). Even 37 percent of Republicans thought favorably of her, according to a Washington Post/ABC News Poll in January 2013.

What she accomplished substantively in her four years at State is a matter of debate, but one thing she definitely improved was her public image. Americans who’d watched her grueling, ultimately losing campaign against a younger, more junior Senate colleague were impressed.

The steady, head-down job radiated confidence. There she was in Moscow, working to rebuild the relationship with Russia. Or in China, negotiating the release of a blind dissident lawyer who had sought refuge in the American embassy. Or in Myanmar, becoming the first U.S. secretary of State to visit in more than a half century.

Just two years later, so much of that seems a distant memory. Her approval numbers have tanked, but perhaps even more damaging: What had been the key achievement on her resume now cannot be mentioned without raising questions of pay-to-play and deleted emails.

The respect she earned from visiting a record 112 nations? The admiration for the million air miles she logged in those four years, including those aboard that cavernous C-17 that’s now her signature image? Gone, replaced instead with reminders of the Hillary Clinton of years past, the first lady deflecting or obfuscating—sometimes for her husband, sometimes on her own behalf; sometimes it was impossible to discern which.

“This is not the launch they wanted,” said David Winston, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich in those earlier days. “Because of the way she’s done it, she’s let these things be the dominant issues.”

Call it squandered goodwill—made worse by the knowledge that these were unforced errors. The Clinton Foundation could have chosen to follow its 2008 “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama Transition Team to the letter. Former President Bill Clinton could have foregone taking speaking fees from clients with business before the State Department. Hillary Clinton could have conducted her official duties using official equipment and official email accounts—and then let career service professionals decide which emails were public business and which were not.

The first decision goes to her relationship with her husband, and whether she could have controlled his activities even if she’d wanted to. And the second is no doubt a function of living decades under a harsh media microscope. Keeping things secret likely seemed much more attractive than having political opponents rummaging around searching for new scandal.

A Quinnipiac University poll shows how far she’s fallen. Her favorability number is now about even—46 percent to 47 percent. A strong majority believes she is not honest and trustworthy, and even the approval rating of her work as secretary of State is down to 50 percent to 45 percent.

Of course, it’s not realistic to think that she would remain as popular as she’d been when she went back to being a presidential candidate. Those stratospheric numbers were bound to come to earth, whether there were whiffs of new scandals or merely the dredged up old ones.

Clinton’s actual performance as secretary of State is open to all sorts of interpretation. Many Republicans fault her for letting American prestige and influence wane around the world, and not doing enough as the Middle East and North Africa grew ever more turbulent. Her defenders argue that pulling back from perceived excesses of the previous administration was exactly what American voters wanted in 2008—and that she was implementing Obama’s foreign policy, not creating one of her own.

Whatever the reality, and however historians eventually come down on her tenure, Americans thought well of it while it was happening, and for some time afterward.

But as it became clear that she intended to run for the presidency again, her supporters and opponents began lining up on the usual sides, just as they have been from the time a quarter-century ago when she declared that she would not have stayed home to bake cookies.

Now, like eight years ago, it is her name on the ballot. More than half of the electorate is female, and the opportunity to elect the first woman president will be powerful motivation. Attention spans are short, and it’s unclear how closely actual voters are following presidential politics right now, anyway.

Even Winston, the Republican, acknowledges that it’s early, and that Clinton has plenty of time to change the story to one more to her liking. “This isn’t carved in stone,” he said. “This is right now where things are.”

What We're Following See More »
Trump Inauguration Spending Now Under Investigation
14 minutes ago

"Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions."

Federal Judges Nix Proposed Atlantic Pipeline
1 hours ago

In a rare rebuke to energy companies in the Trump era, "a panel of federal judges has rejected permits for the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline to cross two national forests and the Appalachian trail in Virginia, finding that the national Forest Service 'abdicated its responsibility' and kowtowed to private industry in approving the project. The harshly worded, 60-page decision issued Thursday by three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is part of a string of legal setbacks for the 600-mile pipeline. The $7 billion project, being built by a consortium of companies led by Dominion Energy, is planned to carry natural gas from West Virginia, through Virginia and into North Carolina."

Senate Moves to End Support for Saudi War
2 hours ago
Federal Judge Upholds Ranked-Choice Voting in Maine
4 hours ago

"A federal judge on Thursday rejected Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin’s constitutional claims against ranked-choice voting and denied the incumbent’s request for a new election against Democratic Congressman-elect Jared Golden. U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker ruled that, contrary to the arguments of Poliquin’s legal team, the U.S. Constitution does not require that whichever congressional candidates receives the most votes—or 'a plurality'—be declared the winner. Instead, Walker ruled the Constitution grants states broad discretion to run elections."

Mueller Probing Middle East Countries' Influence Campaigns
4 hours ago

Officials working under Special Counsel Robert Mueller are investigating Middle Eastern countries' attempts to influence American politics, and are set to release the findings in early 2019. "Various witnesses affiliated with the Trump campaign have been questioned about their conversations with deeply connected individuals from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel ... Topics in those meetings ranged from the use of social-media manipulation to help install Trump in the White House to the overthrow of the regime in Iran." Investigators are also probing meetings organized by Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, and Joel Zamel, "a self-styled Mark Zuckerberg of the national-security world with deep ties to Israeli intelligence."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.