Democrats Put Hillary Clinton at Risk by Dismissing Benghazi Criticism

New poll finds the attack still hurts Clinton, and her allies are doing her no favors by pretending it’s a nonissue.

Hillary Clinton arrives to speak on September 12, 2012 on the killing of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and 3 staff members at the US Consulate building in Benghazi, Libya, from the Treaty Room of the US Department of State, in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Alex Seitz Wald
Add to Briefcase
Alex Seitz-Wald
March 5, 2014, midnight

Demo­crats have ad­op­ted a dis­missive, al­most be­mused pos­ture when it comes to the con­ser­vat­ive fix­a­tion with the 2012 at­tack on the dip­lo­mat­ic out­post in Benghazi, Libya, con­fid­ent in the know­ledge that the facts bear little re­semb­lance to what they see as the Right’s con­spir­acy the­or­ies.

On one hand, they’re cor­rect. Count­less con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee re­ports, ad­min­is­tra­tion probes, and journ­al­ist­ic in­vest­ig­a­tions have cleared then-Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton of any wrong­do­ing, and found there was little else the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion could have done once the at­tacks began. “Ghazi” has be­come short­hand for a par­tis­an-driv­en scan­dal.

But Demo­crats are in deni­al if they think Benghazi won’t be an is­sue in the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race, should Clin­ton run.

A new poll from Pew Re­search Cen­ter and USA Today shows the danger. When re­spond­ents were asked to name in their own words the biggest neg­at­ive for Clin­ton from her long ca­reer in pub­lic ser­vice, the most com­mon re­sponse was Benghazi. Sure, it’s only 15 per­cent who gave that an­swer, but that’s still a lot.

And it’s not just Re­pub­lic­ans; Demo­crats also picked it more of­ten than any­thing else, with 8 per­cent list­ing the at­tack as Clin­ton’s biggest neg­at­ive.

Just be­cause Demo­crats be­lieve there was noth­ing ne­far­i­ous about Clin­ton’s role in Benghazi doesn’t mean there are no grounds from which to cri­ti­cize her. Be­sides, they should have learned from “a gov­ern­ment takeover of health care” and “you didn’t build that” that bump­er-stick­er slo­gans can still de­liv­er blows. That’s polit­ics.

Re­spond­ents to the Pew sur­vey wer­en’t giv­en a list of op­tions to choose from, but had to vo­lun­teer their own an­swers — al­most 20 per­cent couldn’t come up with any neg­at­ive at all — and it’s not a good thing for Clin­ton that a plur­al­ity of voters had Benghazi on the top of their minds.

Bill Clin­ton and his dal­li­ances were the next most fre­quent an­swer, at 9 per­cent. The rest of the re­sponses — her party af­fil­i­ation, “gen­er­al dis­like,” “dis­hon­estly,” and “ca­reer politi­cian” — were offered by 2 per­cent or 3 per­cent of re­spond­ents each.

And you can bet that Re­pub­lic­ans will put Benghazi front and cen­ter if Clin­ton runs, says Tim Miller, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of Amer­ica Rising, a Re­pub­lic­an su­per PAC ded­ic­ated to op­pos­i­tion re­search. While he ac­know­ledges that there’s been some “silly-sea­son” claims on Benghazi from his own side, “there is a cent­ral ar­gu­ment about com­pet­ence and pre­pared­ness that’s worth dis­cuss­ing.”

His group is work­ing on an “au­thor­it­at­ive tick­tock” of the at­tack based on ex­ist­ing sources, which he says will be used to raise dif­fi­cult ques­tions about Clin­ton and the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s hand­ling of events sur­round­ing the at­tack, from dip­lo­mat­ic se­cur­ity be­fore­hand to how the White House re­spon­ded af­ter­ward.

Clin­ton’s ten­ure at the State De­part­ment is one of her biggest as­sets, as the Pew poll clearly shows. But just 12 per­cent vo­lun­teered it as the most pos­it­ive as­pect of her ca­reer, slightly few­er than those who cited Benghazi as the most neg­at­ive.

It would be polit­ic­al mal­prac­tice for Re­pub­lic­ans to leave her ten­ure at State un­ques­tioned, and Benghazi rep­res­ents the clearest way for them to go after Clin­ton’s biggest strength. “The over­throw of [Muam­mar] Qad­dafi is seen as one of her sig­na­ture ac­com­plish­ments,” Miller notes of the former Liby­an dic­tat­or.

Benghazi un­der­mines one of Clin­ton’s key mes­sages, says Katie Pack­er Gage, who was Mitt Rom­ney’s deputy cam­paign man­ager in 2012 and re­cently star­ted a con­sult­ing firm aimed at help­ing Re­pub­lic­ans per­form bet­ter with fe­male voters. “When she ran last time, she made the case that she was the one who could take that 3:00 a.m. phone call. Well, that 3:00 a.m. phone call came for her, from Benghazi, and I’m not sure that was a par­tic­u­larly strong mo­ment for her as sec­ret­ary of State,” Gage says.

Demo­crats point out that the at­tack didn’t seem to cause Pres­id­ent Obama much harm dur­ing the 2012 elec­tion, even though it was much fresh­er in people’s minds then. And they ar­gue that the Re­pub­lic­an ob­ses­sion with the at­tack could back­fire when they over­reach, as House Over­sight Com­mit­tee Chair­man Dar­rell Issa has while try­ing to tie Clin­ton to Benghazi.

Be­sides, it’s only 15 per­cent of re­spond­ents, they say. “Un­like many in the GOP who re­main ob­sessed with point­ing fin­gers, Sec­ret­ary Clin­ton im­me­di­ately put policies in­to place to en­sure this tragedy nev­er oc­curs again,” says Ad­rienne El­rod, the com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or of Cor­rect the Re­cord, a Demo­crat­ic su­per PAC. “This poll shows that the GOP’s re­lent­less at­tempts to politi­cize a tragedy aren’t work­ing and that a ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans don’t buy it.”

But in a tight race, 15 per­cent might be something Clin­ton needs to ser­i­ously worry about. It might be­hoove her al­lies to stop laugh­ing at it.

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
2 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
2 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

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.

Login