In the wake of the controversy over her private email server, Americans were left to question whether Hillary was actually naïve about computers and the situation, or whether she was being proactive to ensure her emails remained out of public eye. During this investigation, the conversation surrounding Hillary Clinton shows her as having no involvement with the decision to create this private server; however, this can be viewed as a rhetorical strategy. Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, sophisticated, and experienced politician. Clinton had a desire for privacy, advice from her predecessor, and many benefits of a private server.
As you can see in the video above, Clinton attempts to distance herself from the issue by avoiding the question. In FBI reports released by Politico Magazine, her colleagues describe Hillary saying she “wasn’t very tech savvy and would get frustrated with the process.” After word came out that she had used a private server, Clinton and her staff claimed she did not know anything about the issue or computers in general. It has since been widely debated whether her technological deficiencies are merely used to mask the fact that she might have skirted around the law. Also in this article published by the Politico Magazine, the FBI say she approached her predecessor, Colin Powell asking how he handled technology and he stated a similar strategy, “I got around it by not saying much”.
Benefits of a Private Server
The use of a government server means that all emails are recorded; therefore, records risk being later exposed to the public. By use of a private server Hillary could ensure she retained her privacy. With the intention of running for presidency again, maintaining her image would have been of the utmost importance during this time.
However, this leaves the important question to voters: was she trying to hide things or was she simply unaware of the impact?
Public’s View of the Issue
As this poll from The Wall Street Journal shows, many voters still consider this issue to be important in the election. Although Hillary eventually apologized, this controversy has had a large effect on the rhetoric surrounding her campaign. By initially avoiding the questions, the narrative of her untrustworthiness was reinforced for many. However, many of these people still plan to vote for Clinton despite their feelings of mistrust because they feel even more strongly against her main opponent.
It was definitely a good choice for the Clinton campaign to abandon the “naive” narrative early. Not only was that video painful to watch, I’ve also heard a few other similar sound bites that were just as cringe-worthy. I think switching from the naive tactic to an apology shows voters that Clinton is taking the controversy seriously and truly regrets her actions. She’s also been very consistent with her apologetic reponses in the past months, which reinforces the apology itself. Her sincere responses have helped to keep the jokey sound bites out of the news cycle, but I doubt that it’s enough for voters to truly see her as trustworthy again.
There’s a lot to say about this whole naivety issue. It’s hard to just gloss over the fact that she’s Secretary of State and doesn’t know how to keep her own privacy when keeping state secrets is part of her job. People have been in a lot more trouble for a lot less. Then again she solid her job and she did it to her best ability and you can’t fault her for that. Where the fault in all this lies is up to the individual to judge and personally I don’t even know where I sit. It’s good food for thought though.