by David Brock
In the 2000 presidential race, advisors to Al Gore appeared to embrace the theory that President Clinton was a net negative, prevailing on Gore to sideline him from the campaign trail. As the New York Times reported the conventional wisdom about Clinton at the time, “The glaring Clinton failure is the character issue, including the extramarital activities that led to his impeachment. Pollsters say that ‘Clinton fatigue,’ a weariness with the scandals, has been sapping energy from the Gore candidacy.’”
Well, we all know how that worked out. Analysts concluded after Election Day that had Clinton been out campaigning for Gore in any number of states, he clearly would have pulled his vice president over the finish line. Buying into “Clinton fatigue” was a dumb idea then, and it’s an even dumber idea now—despite what the Republicans and the media tell you to think.
In fact, a number of political observers have suggested that Clinton fatigue is a real phenomena—but that it afflicts the press corps itself, not the public. NBC’s Chuck Todd, for example, explained: “I think there is much less Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party than there is in the press corps, which, by the way, is going to be a separate challenge for her.”
Indeed, as events unfolded in 2014, Todd’s analysis was borne out, as “Clinton fatigue” was cited as a real thing by reporters and commentators—left, right, and center.
Slate: “The issue lurking behind Clinton drama is really one of Clinton fatigue.”
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote of people who “suffer bone-wearying Clinton fatigue.”
Fox News’ Neil Cavuto: “Do we have a case here of potentially Clinton fatigue?”
MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch: “I like Hillary, I just think there’s such a fatigue there.”
Yet through it all, for over a decade, there’s never been any evidence that the country is tired of the Clintons, who remain the most popular and respected political leaders of their generation. And as that last battle of the Clinton Wars approached, Hillary emerged as more viable than ever.
Hillary may start this race in an enviable position. But she will have to fight uphill to keep it that way. The “Clinton rules”—defined by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman as “the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent”—are in effect.
Even when allegations of scandal are totally without merit, Hillary will be considered guilty until proven innocent—and even when the allegations are proven false, she will be considered responsible for creating the appearance of impropriety. Even when she engages in unprecedented transparency, Hillary will always be suspected of hiding something. And even when the attacks against her would have crossed every line imaginable were she any other politician, the right will never face consequences for taking their campaign of personal destruction one step further.
Or will they? That is the challenge for Hillary: to win a fight in which her opponent will have the Koch brothers’ treasure, the scandal launderers’ expertise, and an army of foaming haters in his corner; a fight in which some of her own supporters may fall prey to relentless right-wing propaganda and in which the referees in the press corps not only won’t enforce the rules against low blows, they’ll administer them; a fight in which punches were flying long before the bell even rang.
Chapter Seven
Showdown at Foggy Bottom
Not so long ago, Democrats and Republicans agreed: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding secretary of state. Tapped by Barack Obama to serve as America’s top diplomat—a move that inspired comparisons to Lincoln’s famous “Team of Rivals”—she got to work restoring America’s standing in the world that had been greatly set back during the bellicose, tone-deaf presidency of George W. Bush.
“Hillary consumed herself with the question of how to reverse the damage Bush had done to America’s reputation,” authors Jonathan Allen and Aime Parnes wrote in their book HRC. She did this, they reported, by infusing “the theory of ‘smart power’ into America’s foreign policy. The term, coined by Clinton administration Pentagon official Joseph Nye, is shorthand for an approach to influencing other countries that combines traditional ‘hard power’ such as military force and economic sanctions with the ‘soft power’ of inducing foreign nations to change their behavior by offering carrots such as political or economic assistance.”
When Hillary left office, the world viewed the United States far more favorably than it did just before she took office. From Germany and France, to Mexico, Argentina, and Japan, U.S. favorability ratings increased by 20 points or more.
She also won praise from Republicans for her efforts. In May 2012, Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina described Hillary Clinton as “one of the most effective secretary of states, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I have known in my lifetime.” Three months later, he heaped more acclaim upon her in the New York Times: “She is extremely well respected throughout the world, handles herself in a very classy way, and has a work ethic second to none.”
John McCain called Hillary “an international star” who has done “a really tremendous job.” Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, said, “I think she’s done a good job,” adding, “I have high respect for her.” Even former Vice President Dick Cheney called her “one of the more competent members of the current administration,” which, for him, counts as fulsome praise.
Then Hillary left the State Department, having added an impressive four-year stint as America’s top diplomat to her already strong qualifications for the presidency. And with President Obama reelected and conservatives turning their attention to 2016, all that approbation suddenly disappeared down the memory hole.
In December 2013, Politico Magazine offered conservative pundit and former Jesse Helms aide Danielle Pletka (along with other right-wingers) the opportunity to bash Hillary as “enormously ineffective.” Fox News pundit Doug Schoen, who has apparently inherited Alan Colmes’s old job as the Democratic strategist whose job it is to lose arguments to conservatives, wrote, “She can point to no significant accomplishments as secretary of state.”
Suddenly, the talking point was in the air: Hillary hadn’t really done anything in Foggy Bottom. Yes, she had broken Madeleine Albright’s record for most nations visited, traveling to 112 different countries and covering nearly a million miles in pursuit of diplomatic progress. But in conservatives’ eyes, this wasn’t evidence of Hillary’s work ethic, but rather proof that she was more interested in ceremony than getting anything done.
As Slate’s David Weigel chronicled, “the old conventional wisdom” about Hillary’s excellent work at the State Department “makes for dull copy”—and, sure enough, the mainstream press was ready to play along with the new attack. Weigel clipped an excerpt from right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show in which New York Times magazine writer Mark Leibovich was, more or less, bullied into agreeing that Hillary had no accomplishments:
HEWITT: How would you describe Hillary Clinton’s achievements as Secretary of State?
LEIBOVICH: Geez. Look, I think, I don’t cover the State Department. Look, you have that look on your face like you expect me to duck this question.
HEWITT: No, I expect you not to be able to say anything, because she didn’t do anything.
LEIBOVICH: I actually didn’t, I don’t, here’s the deal. I have not written any stories on Hillary Clinton since 2008. How about, what’s like the graceful way to duck a question?
HEWITT: Not even duck, just as if we’re playing Jeopardy!
LEIBOVICH: Yeah, I honestly don’t know.
HEWITT: Nobody can come up with anything, Mark.
LEIBOVICH: Yeah, let’s see. What did she do? I mean, she traveled a lot. That’s the thing. They’re always like, well, she logged eight zillion miles. It’s like, since when did that become like diplomacy by odometer?
At Correct the Record, we quickly realized what was happening—Republicans were trying to in
vert the truth to destroy their opponent’s advantage, and the political media, never terribly well versed in the intricacies of foreign policy, was an easy mark.
This is how false narratives are born—how Al Gore becomes a serial liar and an elitist, how John Kerry turns from a war hero into a coward and traitor, how Mark Pryor becomes an enemy of Medicare instead of the one person in the Arkansas Senate race who wanted Medicare to continue to exist. These baldly false assertions need to be contested whenever they’re made—loudly, consistently, and even repetitively.
So we developed a long list of Hillary’s accomplishments as secretary of state, the highlights of which are summarized here so that you can have it handy, too:
Hillary helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by securing support from intractable members of the global community after several months of “grueling diplomacy” according to the Washington Post. As the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board grudgingly admitted, “Mrs. Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China… on board.” As Hillary herself put it, “I spent four years sharpening a choice for Iran’s leaders: address the international community’s legitimate concerns about their nuclear program or face ever-escalating pressure and isolation. With support from Congress and our allies, our diplomacy yielded the toughest international sanctions ever imposed.” Hillary’s leadership on the sanctions issue was widely credited with bringing about the landmark agreement with Iran that thwarts its nuclear capabilities for a decade.
Hillary played an integral role in the New START treaty with Russia, successfully pushing the missile reduction agreement through a divided Senate and entering the treaty into force at a Munich meeting with her Russian counterpart. She personally lobbied fifty U.S. senators to pass it, including key Republicans. The result was fewer nuclear missile launchers—and thus a safer world. And while Hillary made progress with Russia, she refused to defend Russia’s policies when they clashed with our own.
She successfully negotiated a cease-fire to end eight days of hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza—“right,” as Politico reported, “at the moment hope seemed dead for a rapid end to the violence.” Hillary traveled to the region to negotiate with Israelis and Palestinians, bringing in Egypt as the sponsor of the cease-fire agreement, and quelling the tide of violence.
Alongside the other members of the president’s national security team, Hillary helped bring an end to the war in Iraq and laid the foundation for an end to the war in Afghanistan, organizing NATO allies to stand up for a postwithdrawal support plan. Discussing the end of the two wars that had lasted since the first term of the Bush administration, President Obama credited “the great work that Hillary did and her team did and the State Department did.”
She spearheaded the administration’s “pivot to Asia” strategy, which Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution called “Obama’s most lasting strategic achievement,” noting that Hillary “laid the groundwork, built the relationships, and developed the complex architecture of the new strategy—and she turned up at that pivotal moment in Vietnam in July 2010 to declare the U.S. commitment to the region.” When it came to China’s influence in Asia, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “Secretary Clinton was very much in the lead.” Hillary also broke new ground in opening up the country of Burma, which had not been visited by a secretary of state in half a century.
Hillary built a coalition to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi and bring an end to the massacres taking place there, using what the Washington Post described as “her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats among NATO partners, secure crucial backing from Arab countries, and tutor rebels on the fine points of message management.” According to Newsweek columnist Michael Tomasky, “Whatever Libya’s future holds, Muammar Gaddafi’s gone, and Benghazi—well before it became a fake Fox News ‘controversy’—it’s the place where thousands of lives were almost certainly saved. Clinton led the way in making it happen.” GOP Senators Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, Mark Kirk, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham all lauded Libya’s liberation.
Hillary focused on economic engagement, reaching three new free trade agreements (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea), as well as fifteen new Open Skies agreements, including with Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “Clinton has argued that commercial diplomacy and the promotion of trade, long the neglected stepchildren of the foreign policy establishment, are central to U.S. strategic interests…. Her work as a spokeswoman for American business is a less visible part of her legacy. Yet it may be the most durable.”
Thanks to Hillary’s focus on economic statecraft, U.S. exports increased by a third—exports to China alone increased by half in just two years. As Bloomberg reported, she created a “business-promotion machine.” Her victories included a $21 billion deal with Boeing that will bring one hundred thousand jobs to Americans, $100 million for an Ohio startup’s electric vehicles, a $5 million Swiss contract for a Virginia flight company, a $668 million contract for Palo Alto firms to build a national broadband network in Australia, a deal between General Electric and Vietnam worth $80 million, and more.
Hillary led the charge as the State Department adapted to emerging issues such as cybersecurity, creating the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to fight terrorists online, fulfilling her pledge “to integrate all the tools of American power to combat terror threats.” She also helped create the Bureau of Energy Resources to protect energy infrastructure and help move the world to cleaner energy.
Hillary was the first secretary of state to prioritize women’s rights around the world; as Newsweek reported, it is in the area of “hardships faced by women and girls across the world that her impact has been most profound.” She created a critical new position within the State Department: ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. And she “implemented concrete objectives and actions to marshal U.S. expertise and capacity to address and prevent gender-based violence” across the globe. Truly, this was visionary leadership.
And, of course, as a member of the national security cabinet, Hillary lent key support to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. As Newsweek reported, Defense Secretary Gates recommended an air strike with no forces on the ground. CIA Director Leon Panetta supported a raid by Special Forces on the ground, and so did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued Obama “had to take the risk.”
Armed with the facts, Hillary’s supporters were able to get the word out, often using our list of accomplishments when facing off on the cable airwaves. We helped place dozens of op-eds focusing on specific aspects of her record at State. Slowly but surely, the truth got its boots on: Hillary’s singular accomplishment, earning back respect for the United States abroad in the wake of George W. Bush’s brazen and tragically inept policies, had broken through.
All our work was done in anticipation of June 2014, when Hillary herself would have an opportunity to tell her own story with the release of her book Hard Choices: part personal memoir, part policy prescription, and part retrospective on the decisions she’d had to make in Foggy Bottom. Now voters would hear from Hillary herself that she has what it takes to defend and advance America’s interests and values abroad on the complex and ever-changing international stage.
For everyone in Washington, the book’s release was an exciting moment in a presidential precampaign that had been slow to develop. Insiders (or their assistants) rushed to bookstores to flip through the index, wondering if their names were mentioned. Political reporters scoured the text, looking for juicy details, entertaining anecdotes, or declarations of future ambition. (Catching a likely presidential candidate admitting that he or she is, in fact, going to run is a favorite pastime of the Washington press corps.)
But partisans on both sides had the release date circled on their calendars, because the book’s release and reception—and Hillary’s long-awaited appearances as part of her book tour
—would be a chance for both sides to define Hillary’s legacy as secretary of state.
For the Republican outfit America Rising, the release of Hard Choices was an opportunity to push their alternate reality of Hillary’s tenure at the State Department.
Their characterization of Secretary Clinton wasn’t always coherent—was she a passive and feckless bystander to history, or a bumbler who committed unforced errors? Was she tied at the hip with President Obama’s most controversial decisions, or painfully out of step with her own administration? But coherence didn’t matter. The task for America Rising was simply to ruin Hillary’s victory lap, framing what she clearly believed to be a platform for a potential presidential run as damaging or even disqualifying.
America Rising didn’t wait for their copy of Hard Choices to arrive from Amazon before trying to tear it apart. At 8:30 p.m. on the Sunday night before the book’s release, they leaked an e-book they had prepared in advance, pointedly titled Failed Choices. This was an attempt to rebut in advance (“pre-but,” in the parlance of political operatives) Hillary’s account of her time in Foggy Bottom, a tenure that an America Rising official declared to be “without a signature accomplishment and instead defined by her significant and tangible failures.”
