If you're explaining, you're losing....

U.S. Presidential election campaigns are awesome! For some the permanent campaign in American politics is tiresome, expensive, and makes a mockery of democracy. I'm not in that camp. American presidents don't always work out well, but getting to the White House means going through the toughest job interview process on the planet. The gig itself isn't for the faint of heart, so it's no surprise that the process for getting there is equally rough.

Hillary Clinton's campaign faces a growing set of problems that have little to do with challengers from either party. Many, in fact, are own goals. Back in April, I wrote a post about Hillary Clinton's announcement that she was going to make another run at President in 2016 (Link). I will take the opportunity to gloat a little and suggest that you revisit the list of challenges that the 2016 version of the Clinton campaign would face (see points 3, 4 and 6, in particular). Hillary Clinton's campaign is doing too much explaining. And, as President Reagan once said, "if you're explaining, you're losing."

Point 6, in particular, is worth reiterating here.... Remember, I wrote this in April:

6) To what extent will the uproar over her e-mail practices as Secretary of State dog her in the months ahead? As the Clintons know too well, small-time sleaze can sow plenty of seeds of doubt. The long-running Whitewater investigation during the Clinton Presidency was small beer, but ultimately resulted in President Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. Oh, and I guess we need to acknowledge the Monica Lewinsky scandal that was uncovered as well. Sleaze indeed.

6.1) Will the e-mail business simply fuel doubts among voters that the Clintons are always hiding things. There is something about the GOP and the Clintons that parallels red capes in front of a bull. The GOP has already begun waving a red cape at supporters.

Here's what she had to say about the brewing e-mail mess back in March while visiting the United Nations:

Well, the "drip, drip, drip" of problems plaguing Secretary Clinton's campaign has, in my mind, become a steady flow. Of late, Secretary Clinton has been a little more open to engagement with the press corps (partly due to criticism that she was being shielded from the press). Well, her press conference yesterday didn't go well....

Moreover, it reinforced some of the worst perceptions about the Clintons. I won't reinvent the wheel explaining why it was so bad. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has a great analysis of all of it (linked here). But in summary....

1. She sounds like a lawyer.
2. She casts the whole thing as normal and every day.
3. She's dismissive.
4. She's sarcastic.
5. She's wrong.

As you may have noted in the election ticker, election day is a long way off. However, the first real test of all the candidates are the Iowa Caucuses on February 1. In 2008, Iowa turned out to be the Clinton campaign's Battle of Waterloo. It was a bitter third-place finish that exposed a number of weaknesses in her campaign and turned out to be the beginning of the end for the presumptive front-runner. Clinton needs Iowa to go exceptionally well in 2016. Responding to questions about e-mail is not going to get it done.

You might ask whether I am focusing on Hillary Clinton unfairly? After all, the Republicans are busy tearing themselves to bits focusing on the Donald Trump show (perhaps I'll write something on that another time). I think I'd characterize my interest in this as a form of disappointment. I've been a fan for some time and probably would have voted for her in 2008. Given the sexist hatchet job the press did on Clinton's 2008 campaign, I can understand some of the palpable tensions between her and the press. But I am worried for her candidacy.

After 20+ years of public life, I'm not sure you can credibly maintain a distinction between what is public or private. Further, when you seek the highest office in the land, what the public has a right to know about you is no longer up to you. This fuss over e-mails might have been much ado about nothing,.... back in March. The only question that remains is how BIG a something it will now become (the FBI is conducting a criminal probe into the matter)? The one certainty here is that she will be spending more time talking about e-mails in the weeks ahead than her vision for the presidency. There will be a lot more explaining taking place throughout the fall, including on Capitol Hill when Secretary Clinton will testify before a grumpy Congress about all of this.

"If you're explaining, you're losing."