Hillary Clinton?s campaign
Hacked off
What looks like a Russian hack of the Clinton campaign chairman?s e-mail account would, in another year, be causing the candidate problems
Oct 15th 2016 | WASHINGTON, DC | From the print edition
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...inton-campaign-chairmans-e-mail-account-would
IF OPINION polls maintain current trends, the sounds of pursuit by Donald Trump will reach Hillary Clinton?s ears ever-more faintly as she enters the final straight of a long, slog of a race for the White House. But even if the Republican nominee continues to run out of puff (see Briefing) one last worry haunts Democrats: that Mrs Clinton, an uninspiring candidate lugging decades of political baggage, could still somehow slow and lose all by herself. Those concerns have not been eased by a remorseless, ongoing effort by WikiLeaks, an online clearing-house for leaked and hacked information, to load fresh baggage onto the Democratic nominee.
In recent days alone WikiLeaks has published thousands of e-mails that appear to have been hacked from the Gmail account of John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs Clinton?s presidential campaign and a former close aide to President Barack Obama. Though Mr Podesta has not confirmed the authenticity of individual documents, he told reporters aboard a campaign aeroplane that ?it doesn?t feel great? to have ten years of e-mails dumped into the public domain.
The stolen information includes politically awkward extracts from paid speeches given by Mrs Clinton to Wall Street banks and other deep-pocketed organisations, and which she steadfastly refused to make public during a drawn-out presidential primary fight against a left-wing populist challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders. Her yen for secrecy is explained by the extracts, flagged up in an internal campaign review of lines likely to make Democratic activists cross. They include praise for free trade, including Mrs Clinton?s dream of a common market throughout the Western hemisphere with ?open trade and open borders?. In another address Mrs Clinton ponders the unseemly business of law-making, citing Abraham Lincoln?s willingness to have ?both a public and a private position? on sensitive issues.
The hacked e-mails also reveal wrangling about how to minimise negative publicity around Mrs Clinton?s use of a private e-mail server to send and receive secret government information; internal discussions about how to handle touchy Democratic grandees (including at the Obama White House); the uselessness of sundry reporters; and how to finesse moderate policy positions liable to displease the party?s leftish activists. They include spats among members of the Clinton inner circle, as when Chelsea Clinton raises ?serious concerns? about a perception that a consulting firm was cashing in on its access to her father, former president Bill Clinton, blurring the lines between business, government and the family?s charitable arm, the Clinton Foundation. Yet mostly the impression is of political operatives doing what might be expected?being political. To date the revelations come closer to gossip than to the campaign-ending ?October surprise? that Clinton foes had been looking forward to.
Predictably in this age of canyon-deep political divisions, the actual content of the hacked e-mails is now being overshadowed by partisan squabbling about the motives of those who stole them and made them public, and about the honesty of the news organisations sifting through them and assessing their importance.
In July WikiLeaks released almost 20,000 e-mails from the accounts of officials at the Democratic National Committee, showing that the supposedly neutral party headquarters was rooting for Mrs Clinton to beat Mr Sanders?a not-very-startling revelation that led to the resignation of the DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Hackers linked to Russian intelligence agencies were quickly accused of involvement. On October 7th the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, issued a remarkable statement declaring their confidence that the Russian government directed ?recent compromises of e-mails? of individuals and political organisations in order to ?interfere with the US election process?.
Mr Trump has pushed back on such findings, including in his most recent TV debate with Mrs Clinton, when he said that his opponent ?doesn?t know if it?s the Russians doing the hacking,? and speculated: ?Maybe there is no hacking.? Mr Podesta, in his airborne press briefing two days after that debate, said that the FBI is investigating a ?criminal hack? of his account, adding: ?Russian interference in this election and apparently on behalf of Trump is, I think, of the utmost concern to all Americans, whether you?re a Democrat or independent or Republican.? That vision of cross-party consensus is a trifle optimistic.
In a campaign rally in Florida, Mr Trump denounced Mrs Clinton?s leaked daydreaming about a common market of the Americas, declaring: ?American soldiers have fought and died to win and keep America?s freedom, and now Hillary Clinton wants to surrender that freedom to these open borders, open trade, and a world government.? Warming to his theme, he decided that the leaked e-mails confirm that Mrs Clinton is the ?vessel? of a ?criminal government cartel [that] doesn?t recognise borders but believes in global governance, unlimited immigration and rule by corporations.? Later, in an angry tweet, the Republican nominee accused news outlets of burying the story, grumbling: ?Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!?
To simplify, Mr Trump has two main goals in these final weeks. First, to bring home unhappy voters who voted Republican in previous presidential contests but who loathe him: a group that notably includes educated white women in suburbia. Second, to depress Mrs Clinton?s support among Democrats and swing voters. Mr Trump?s rhetoric about hacked e-mails may help him with the second task, but does almost nothing to help with the first. Hence Mr Trump?s rage.
