“I‘m puzzled by his strategy.” That’s a comment I heard some years ago from Democratic consultant Carter Eskew when I asked him what he thought of a ploy by an opposing candidate. I have been puzzled by the Hillary Clinton campaign’s apparent strategy to attack FBI Director James Comey for notifying Congress Oct. 27 that the FBI was investigating emails uncovered in another investigation “to determine whether they contain classified information” — obtained presumably from the homebrew email system employed by Clinton when she was secretary of state.
Comey’s announcement was made before 2 p.m. Friday afternoon, at which point Clinton Democrats immediately went into attack mode, charging first that his letter was sent only to Republican members of Congress. This suggests they were acting in panic mode, since the letter was addressed, as is customary in Executive Branch letters to Congress, to both Republican and Democratic members.
Clinton herself attacked Comey on the campaign trail, and vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and multiple Democrats and members of the press attacked him for allegedly disregarding Justice Department “protocols” in making his announcement.
I won’t repeat the defenses of Comey’s action made by many observers, except to refer to Andrew McCarthy’s invaluable contributions in National Review online: the gist is that having announced the investigation was over July 5, Comey was obliged to announce that it had been resumed Oct. 27. My point is political: Did it make sense for the Clinton campaign to attack the FBI director?
One person who doesn’t think so is former Pennsylvania Gov. (and former Philadelphia Mayor and District Attorney) Ed Rendell. The often shockingly frank Rendell, asked by Philadelphia radio station WPHT interviewer Rich Zeoli whether attacking Comey was a “mistake,” said, “I generally do as well.” He went on, “I think that’s, I wouldn’t do that. Again, you know, I’m not running the campaign by any means, but I wouldn’t do that.”
Rendell’s political instinct here seems sound. If you could ask voters whether they would trust Hillary Clinton or the FBI director, I think the FBI director would come out ahead by a wide margin. The attacks by Clinton, her campaign and her friends in mainstream media just spotlighted the secret email server issue — an issue that doesn’t work for Clinton. By Tuesday Clinton had ostentatiously switched to attacking Donald Trump for his attitudes toward women — an issue obviously more favorable for her, though whether it’s going to change many voters’ minds after having been thoroughly aired is unclear. But Tuesday was four days after Comey’s letter. The fact that it took Clinton and her campaign four days to pivot from emphasizing an issue that hurt them to an issue that is likely to help them shows bad political instincts.
It may also show a reflexive return to the Clintons’ 1990s strategy of attacking anyone who made charges against them. That worked pretty well when Bill Clinton was a re-elected incumbent president with majority job approval. But Hillary Clinton is not an incumbent president and with majority disapproval.
Anyway, I remain puzzled by her strategy.
