There Are Other Democrats

The editors of the New York Times and USA Today have both come out today with editorials critical of Hillary Clinton, with different levels of severity.

NYT:

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Across the years of the Clintons’ ascendancy, the public has seen that Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives — at times grudging in admitting error and, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, blaming a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for allegations against her and her husband that began early in his tenure and continued on through the impeachment scandal. (The right wing was definitely on his case, but hardly alone in its doubts about Mr. Clinton’s personal conduct.)

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.

USAT:

If Clinton wants to become the president of the United States, she needs to explain how she could make such a reckless decision. She had a chance to answer questions when the Obama administration-appointed inspector general contacted her about the investigation that was released last week. Among five recent secretaries of State, only Clinton refused.

While Clinton is under potential criminal investigation by the FBI for the mishandling of classified material sent through her email, remaining silent might be in her best interests and it is certainly her right. But to be president, she is going to have to convince voters that she can put the national security of the United States above her own short-term self-interest.

From both of these it’s pretty clear that editors don’t speak federal bureaucratese. Let me translate from the State Department Inspector General’s report:

1. He thinks it’s likely that she committed several crimes.
2. Sec. Clinton and her campaign have lied.

There have been rumors floating around (and not just from partisan Republicans) that the FBI is preparing to ask a grand jury to consider whether criminal charges should be filed. Expect these to multiply unless and until the FBI actually releases its report.

While the Clintons, the Clinton campaign, and various loyalists and apparatchiks continue to circle the wagons, it seems timely to point out that there are other Democrats. And quite a number of them would have been running for president if Hillary Clinton hadn’t been sucking all of the air out of the room.

How about thinking about some? Preferably some who aren’t liars, serial bunglers, and 70 years old.