The Atlantic‘s Russell Berman (10/13/16) says you “shouldn’t be surprised” by what’s in the leaked Clinton campaign emails.
Leaks from Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails have been trickling in for the past week. The leaks—along with previous DNC emails—provide intimate details about the inner workings of the campaign that may well soon elect the most powerful person on Earth.
The response from some journalists has been to analyse, dissect and find the most newsworthy bits. For others, the reaction has been to dismiss and downplay, turning the often cynical meatgrinder of American politics into a snooze barely worthy of discussion.
Call that second group the “are you surprised” crowd:
- What Hillary Clinton Told Wall Street Bankers in Private, According to Leaked Emails (Vox, 10/11/16):
These remarks aren’t really very new or surprising.
- What the WikiLeaks Emails Say About Clinton (Russell Berman, The Atlantic, 10/13/16):
But on the whole, they shouldn’t be surprised by what’s in them. Though anti-Clintonites on the right and left may find their suspicions about Clinton confirmed, there’s nothing in the emails that would provide them new lines of criticism—or provide new sources of worry to her allies.
- What the WikiLeaks Emails Tell Us About Hillary Clinton (Doyle McManus, LA Times, 10/16/16):
This is a finding that will surprise no one who has watched the Clintons since, say, 1982…. It certainly won’t surprise Bernie Sanders voters.
- I Read Hillary Clinton’s Speeches to Goldman Sachs. Here’s What Surprised Me the Most (Daniel W. Drezner, Washington Post, 10/17/16):
This isn’t terribly surprising, as Clinton’s position on trade policy has easily been the most cynical part of her campaign. But it is worth noting.
What surprised Drezner the most, by the way, was: “After reading all three speeches…I don’t understand why Clinton didn’t make them public back in the spring.” Or possibly, “Clinton’s comfort talking about the subtleties of international relations,” or that “the private Hillary Clinton [is] more assured and less awkward than the public Hillary Clinton”—it’s not quite clear.
But this whole “surprised” line is a complete red herring. Who has ever claimed they were surprising, and what does surprise or lack thereof have to do with anything?
Something doesn’t have to be shocking or surprising to be newsworthy, much less objectionable. Indeed, the routine banality of Clinton and her aides colluding with the DNC to undermine Sanders, and cozying up to Wall Street, makes it more consequential, not less. The “why is this shocking?” tic is a rhetorical gimmick meant to downplay revelations that, while perhaps assumed, had heretofore not been backed by specific evidence.
This is what we’ve called the Snowden Cycle (FAIR.org, 7/24/16)—a PR trick employed by those attempting to downplay the NSA revelations in 2013. Obviously, this situation is different, but the spin is the same: Claims of illegal surveillance were either ignored or dismissed as conspiracy theories, then, when the NSA leaks documented widespread domestic spying and unconstitutional overreach, the response from the same pundits was, “Yawn, we already knew that.”
But we didn’t really know that, we simply assumed that, and there’s a world of difference between the two. The fact that Clinton is cozy with much of the press, told climate change activists to “get a life,” and touted TPP in front of Goldman Sachs despite going on to oppose it in public may have been assumed, but now it’s something we know to be true. This, on its face, is significant.
As David Dayen (New Republic, 10/14/16) notes, the revelation that a Citigroup employee knew what the makeup of Obama’s cabinet would be weeks before the 2008 election is also noteworthy. But never mind, it’s important we ignore all this, and instead cherry pick a few vague comments that align with what we already know.
Was it “Clinton’s comfort talking about the subtleties of international relations”?
The Washington Post’s Drezner, in his obligatory “why is this surprising” clause, casually admits Clinton is lying about her position on trade—one she campaigned on in the primaries—but doesn’t seem to really care. Her embrace of TPP in front of Goldman Sachs, he writes,
isn’t terribly surprising, as Clinton’s position on trade policy has easily been the most cynical part of her campaign. But it is worth noting.
Clinton, he says, is clearly lying about her stance on the TPP—in his own piece that he links to, he says “there is no genuine policy motivation for her opposition”—but, meh, what are you gonna do? Any notion that one’s political stances should be the least bit consistent is simply shrugged off by virtue of being boring. This is totally contradicted in his last passage, when Drezner insists “these transcripts mostly reveal a person who says similar things in private that she does in public.” Except about totally trivial things like labor and trade agreements.
Part of the trick is conflating the descriptive (how things are) with the normative (how things ought to be). By asserting that Clinton’s cozy Wall Street relationships and “fluid” positions in and out of the public spotlight are just The Way of Things, Drezner and others never stop to take ethical inventory of any of this. They never bother to ask if what’s revealed in the Podesta emails are the way it should be—or whether, more importantly, it’s the way the primary voters were led to believe they were. It’s the normalization of venality posing as jaded realism. (It’s worth remembering that an AP/National Opinion Research Center report in August found that 86 percent of Americans were angry or dissatisfied with the state of politics in the nation—something that an in-depth look at the inner workings of one of the two major parties might help to explain.)
There are at least two major revelations on foreign policy that are clearly consequential, and both are overlooked by the above op-eds. The first is an admission by Hillary Clinton in June 2013 that a no-fly zone in Syria–something she openly supports–would “kill a lot of Syrians.” This is a crude reality often ignored by liberal interventionalists and certainly newsworthy, though it has been largely overlooked in favor of the more personality-based aspects of the leaks.
Another foreign policy revelation ignored by the “is this shocking?” crowd is one email that seemingly shows Clinton endorsing the idea that Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the US’s closest allies–and major Clinton Foundation donors–are funding and supporting ISIS and al-Qaeda. One email she sent—it’s unclear whether this is her language or someone else’s—read:
While this military/paramilitary operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
This is in glaring contradiction to US government’s public line, including Clinton’s, on our Gulf allies. Does Clinton think Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding and backing ISIS? Shouldn’t this be followed up on? Highlighted? No. Instead, those with the most influential column space in the world spend their media capital playing up personality disputes, spinning corporatism as pragmatism, and insisting, above all, there’s nothing “shocking” here.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
Aren’t we all “more assured and less awkward” when we’re hanging with our homies?
To all those on the left who continue to promote the kind of crap contained here. There was a time when fair.org was the first site I hit each and every day. But FAIR has forgotten which side they’re on, and the continuing attacks on Hillary Clinton do nothing more than help Donald Trump, as if that is OK with you. Like a bunch of babies, you insist on making a choice that you do not have, so go ahead FAIR lefties and vote for Jill Stein. If Hillary wins you’ll look even less relevant, and if Trump wins you’ll be getting what you deserve. Some of us are true far lefties, but we’re also adults, time for you guys to grow up.
It’s not just a question of helping one campaign win. If Clinton wins, she needs to be held to account. The politics of only caring about electing Democrats leads to exactly the kind of cynical Democratic politics that Clinton practices.
At this point none of that matters, despite what you wish to be true. You act as a lot of lefties do, that somehow you are more honest, forthright, and pure than Hillary or many other Democrats, and then insist a Trump victory will be somebody else’s fault. Talk about cynacism.
Cynicism. Fat finger.
“At this point none of that matters”
Excellent trolling, Joe.
When the college educated upper-half of society is so criminal as to hoard all the land and wealth, you expect the politics in Empire USA to not be criminal?
Thank you Joe! I’ve been posting similar comments for months. It seems to me FAIR does better when there is a Republican in the Whitehouse. So they are doing all they can to ensure a President Trump come January.
With everything about him that has been ignored or glossed over by the print and electronic media you would think they would fill our in boxes with post after post of attacks on corporate media about the bias towards Mr. Trump, but all I’ve received is post after post about why we too hate Hillary.
“But FAIR has forgotten which side they’re on, and the continuing attacks on Hillary Clinton do nothing more than help Donald Trump, as if that is OK with you.”
Quite the contrary: FAIR has remembered exactly which side they are on, and it’s the side that exposes the truth, no matter how unpleasant. That’s the job of journalism, not to censor themselves to promote the election of any particular candidate.
If these kinds of revelations hurt Hillary Clinton, that’s Hillary Clinton’s problem, not FAIR’s problem. “Fairness and Accuracy” should not be the liberal equivalent of “fair and balanced”.
Partisan strife (D vs R) and ideological differences (lib vs con, left vs right) are merely gimmicks to keep the masses distracted and divided (and thus conquered). Any site/publication worth its salt, including FAIR, understands this.
Rise above the false dichotomy, Joe, and see the bigger picture.
FAIR [“Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting”] has forgotten which side they’re on”
Good one.
With all the depressing news, I needed a good laugh.
Thanks!
My point was that this article only helps Trump. And that FAIR seems OK with that. Again if Trump wins you get what you deserve.
So, in essence, your argument amounts to an Appeal to Consequences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
I’m unimpressed. The job of the press is to inform the public. They should never, and I mean never, censor themselves.
I took logic a long time ago, so please forgive my ignorance.
But you are using a logic with which I am not familiar when you conclude that “if Trump wins you get what you deserve” simply from my pointing out that your statement that “FAIR [“Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting”] has forgotten which side they’re on” is humorous.
I am very intrigued by this new logic. Can you please give me a link to where I might learn it?
Or should I just read more of your posts and try to pick it up from those?
Thanks in advance.
And also the lecture where the professor noted that pointing out the illogic of the former means you are responsible if a politician wins.
ROOT CAUSE
In the beginning there was war in heaven and a third of the angels were cast down to earth. For this criminal third of the angels were created to believe that they deserved more, which is the root of all evils. For only if freewill beings feel they deserve less, only if they feel guilty if ever they fail to give all they can give, only then can they live in peace with each other.
So, as the vast majority of humans are born with an illusion that life is not a free gift requiring them to act in a grateful way, but that life is an unalienable right, surely this is why society acts so ungrateful that they pass laws allowing the more intelligent upper-half of society to enrich itself upon the misery of the laboring-class lower-half. Surely, as in every nation on earth the upper-half hoards all the land and wealth.
So, planet earth is an intelligence dictatorship, and unless by intelligent design our vast majority is given as attitude adjustment, surely global warming and wars unending shall destroy all there is to life.
The problem is, in reviewing these important issues, is that many are calling this illegal or even treasonous. Yes, the fact that her policies as stated and as said privately are a concern. However, nothing that I’ve read or been pointed to shows actual corruption, just a facet of the political system that is constantly saying two different things.
While it is important that these contradictions are exposed, it is also important that the fact this is not corruption or illegality. This is two-faced politics at its worst.
However, until the rhetoric of “arrest criminal Hillary” stops, these issues can’t be objectively reviewed and the real problem addressed.
The comments here are worrisome. Joe reflects the same kind if thinking that is being reported in the article. There is no indication he dispute the accuracy or relevancy of the information or denies that the press is minimizing and suppressing the information. What he is angry about is that the suppression has been compromised. Somewhat comically, he accuses FAIR of forgetting which side they are on, as if obfuscation were an essential element of advocacy for an independent press; as if an organization calling itself Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting should support bias and misdirection to promote fairness and accuracy in reporting. Hmm. He lashes out at lefties who he derisively accuses of thinking they are more honest and forthright than Clinton. It’s a fair bet they are, but it’s being a pretty low bar. Voters who expect their representatives to be truthful about what positions they will take in office are insufferable purists. Joe is not alone in admonishing the electorate to modify their expectations downward. The only essential requirement we can demand of Hillary is that she not be Trump. It is the only campaign promise we can be reasonably sure she will honor, and she uniquely suited to fulfill it, because she is the only candidate on the ballot who is not Trump. Everyone us Trump because a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump. And criticizing Hillary, is stumping for Trump. Questioning Hillary is sucking up to Putin. Doubting Hillary is renouncing your citizenship and becoming a KGB agent. And so on and so forth.
It’s a weird election. Hillary is wildly unpopular, yet she has pasted together a huge coalition of voters who don’t particularly like her but are positively desperate to see her elected. She has marshaled an enormous contingent of frantic, ferocious enforcers ready to rip the throats out of anyone who dares to cross the thin blue line, or breach the code of silence. The press is in lock step marching toward Mission Pretense. Evidence of lying, corruption and bribery are shrugged off with faux nonchalance as staffers dash from the room to manufacture rumors of Russian connections to the noncompliant whistleblower. The whole country is in a panic trying to elect someone nobody really wants to be President. It looks like Hillary has pulled off another coup. It’s one of her specialties.
What a pile of BS. There is no real proof, none, that she is guilty of corruption or bribery. But many on the left take it as an article of faith. At this point in the election it does not matter whether expectations are higher, lower or non-existent; there is a stark choice to be made. I get it, a lot of far lefties hate her because she beat Bernie Sanders, and you see it at places like FAIR and Moveon. Republicans have spent over 200 million dollars “investigating” her yet there is no definitive proof of bribery or corruption, so obviously you take it as an article of faith as many on the alt-right also do. There is no candidate anywhere that could not be tarnished horribly by the type of concerted partisan effort to smear that she has been subjected to, not even Bernie Sanders.
The basic premise of the article in question is not that the pundits reported anything incorrectly or not true, but rather they did not report or pay attention to what the author felt important. It certainly appears that was the point of the article, and it really could have been written by the Trump campaign as it mirrors their talking points. I’m probably further left than many or all of you, but I also know I have to continue to live in the world, and seeing a slanted attack article on the last decent person standing is really sad.
As far as the Wikileaks stuff is concerned, imagine if during the 70’s the press would have dealt with the content of the documents stolen from the Democrats Watergate office and not on the thieves and the subsequent coverup. That is what’s going on this year. Somebody needs to take a hard look at the connection between the Trump campaign, the Russians, and Wikileaks. And since it’s ok to accuse without proof, there is a really good chance that all three coordinated together on this. Assange hopes to leave the embassy some day, and knows that Trump will allow that. Quid pro Quo. I have no more proof for this than you have for your charges of bribery or corruption, so if you can believe one, I’ll believe the other.
Joe B:
And if those stolen Watergate documents showed significant corruption on the part McCarthy? You’d just have hid them?
The fact remains that the speeches by Hillary are flirting with just the kind of corruption everyone thought existed. If she were smart, she’d never have given the speeches, and therefore there’d be no transcript to leak.
The DNC broke the rules in favoring Hillary in the primaries.
Oh, and campaign Clinton knows next to nothing about email security.
Is Trump worse than Hillary, yes in many ways, however at least he doesn’t have delusions about fighting a world war with Russia.
In a court room yes this stuff would be inadmissible as “fruit of a poisonous tree.” I understand that we are not in a court. If the Watergate burglars had handed the stuff they found to Walter Cronkite, I’m sure the first thing he would have done is turn it over to the FBI. Would he have reported on what he saw? A very tough question. In both cases none of the stolen information was subject to FOIA request, it was private and confidential data. There are definitely questions of ethics involved here, and nobody has clean hands.
Not everyone agrees with you about the corruption that they thought existed. You’re putting your spin on the meaning to fit your predetermined expectation.
I suppose since you don’t want WW3 you’ll be voting for Trump, since a vote for Jill Stein would only help Hillary Clinton.
Joe,
the fact of the Goldman Sachs speeches is corruption, even it’s not the kind one can prosecute. (Trump is I’m sure just as corrupt, however he doesn’t put that kind of thing in emails and speeches, as best as we can tell.)
In my particular state, the democrat will win the electoral votes. This was never in doubt.
“a vote for Jill Stein would only help Hillary Clinton.”
LOL. People can’t make up their mind. All I’ve been hearing is how a Stein vote would help Trump. It’s clear a lot of presumptions have been made, and no one really knows what the heck’s going on. The Establishment has (most of) us dazed and confused…right where they want us. Which is why everyone should just vote their conscience (which includes not voting at all).
“I’m probably further left than many or all of you,”
Highly doubtful. If that were true, you wouldn’t be here shilling so hard for Hillary. She is NOT left, by any stretch of imagination. She is, however, extremely neoliberal.
You also wouldn’t say things like she’s “the last decent person standing.” Again, she’s as far from “decent” as they come. Do you know her record? Have you researched what she did as SoS to countries like Libya, Honduras, Ukraine and Syria?
If you were really “so far left,” you’d support Jill Stein. Now SHE’S truly the “last decent person standing.”
I learned a long time ago when I voted socialist in the Ohio governor’s race and handed the office to James Rhodes, the Kent State murderer. That year the Democrat was not far enough left for me. As it turns out Rhodes won by 10,000 while the socialist Nancy Brown took 94,000 votes from lefties like me. Nancy Brown didn’t save those kids at Kent State. I learned my lesson that year. Some of you will only learn when you’re faced with a Trump presidency. And Jill Stein won’t be able to do a damn thing to help you. Yes I am very far left, but I’m also an adult. Maybe you don’t care if Donald Trump wins, but I do.
Joe:
And what, if the Ohio governor had been a democrat in 1970, Kent State wouldn’t have happened?
Thing is many more died in the Iraq war than at Kent State, but Hillary didn’t take a stand against it. Then 8 years later, she repeated similar crap with Libya. Her “judgement” is way off.
My issue with FAIR is they have chosen Sec. Clinton as their target. She is an easy one because she has a well publicized history.
Where is the FAIR attack dogs when it comes to Mr. Trump? Why are there not daily attacks on the soft coverage of him and his family? Where is the outrage? Where is the foot stomping demands for regular reporting of his sins? Many of the ones they trot out against Clinton are retreads of been there, covered that, ad nauseum! Where is the same self righteous anger over the passes given to Trump and the Republicans this year?
I don’t think you understand FAIR’s mission. They don’t need to cover Trump’s failings because the mainstream press already does, ad nauseam. It’s become so obvious the corporate press is shilling for Hillary (under orders from the Establishment) by their relentless attacks on Trump, that only Hillary supporters want to turn on their TVs and open a newspaper anymore.
“…seeing a slanted attack article on the last decent person standing is really sad.”
Who attacked Jill Stein?
Happy Now?
4 thefuture
“I don’t fully agree with your comment regarding Greenwald and Klein as
they have both spoken out against our imperial government on many occasions.”
They both condemned WikiLeaks, their privacy and Clinton’s election apparently more important then our freedom. And they both agreed, Assange is full of anger, filled with rage and so vindictive as to “dump” private e-mails they say are none of the public’s business.
Problem is, Greenwald and Klein please the rich greatly by broadcasting their rage at WikiLeaks, as a highest priority of the rich is for everyone to be so locked in a fake morality as to be outraged at WikiLeaks.
Truth is, when Greenwald and Klein publish their writings, they greatly please the rich, for when you rehash the misery without a word about the root cause, all you accomplish is to burn up emotional capital and drive people away from the problem, allowing the rich to do as they please with the problem.
Fact is, the moment we the people can reach agreement on the root cause of why we are an Empire, immediately will we organize a solution, a solution that the rich fear above all things.
Youur method of telling everything in this post is reaally
pleasant, every one ccan easily be aware of it, Thanks a lot.