This really isn’t for much of anyone here on Kos — but if you maintain friendships with people whom you think might do well to consider this, feel free to pass it along to them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a thought experiment for those of my responsible independent friends who are hesitating about their vote because of what you feel are honest questions about Hillary Clinton's judgment or honesty stemming from Benghazi.
I want to put the shoe on the other foot and ask you to walk around on it for a minute.
Suppose Colin Powell were running for President as a Republican. Suppose you liked him - not as conservative as you might want, but a good man, good history, good prospect, likely to do a good job as President.
Now suppose the Congress had been Democratic for the last six years. Suppose that over those six years they had investigated Powell over the US Embassy attack in Calcutta in 2002 where five people were killed. Or perhaps the US Embassy attack in Karachi in 2002 where twelve people were killed. Or the embassy bombing in Denpasar in 2002. Or the 2003 US Embassy attack in Islamabad where two people were killed. Or the 2003 US Embassy bombing in Riyadh where thirty-six people were killed. Or the 2004 US Embassy bombing in Tashkent where two people were killed. Or the 2004 US Embassy bombing in Jeddah where nine people were killed.
Suppose that the Democratic Congress had investigated one or another or a third or all seven embassy attacks that happened while he was Secretary of State. Suppose they had conducted, not the one mandated investigation of each attack, not two, not three, but eight separate investigations, spanning several years, of him and his State Department as a result of one or more of those attacks.
Now, supposing all that, please listen carefully to this question.
Do you think it is plausible that - even if he had done absolutely nothing wrong - those eight investigations, of one or two or all seven of those embassy attacks that occurred on his watch, might have resulted in enough smoke and uncertainty, enough doubt about Powell, his honesty, his forthcomingness, his cooperation with the investigation, his truthfulness throughout an eleven-hour grilling by a committee, that a significant number of Democrats and Independents would be convinced he was a liar and a criminal?
Think carefully about that question. You don't have to admit the possibility of him doing anything wrong. And you do know that if he were running, Democrats would try everything they could to destroy him, you know that Democrats would be primed to believe the worst about him, and you know that most Independents are pretty ready to believe the worst about anybody.
The Congressional investigations might have, for example, discussed his external AOL email account that he maintained while Secretary of State. They might have decided some of the email he sent shouldn't have gone through that server. They might have used that as an excuse to investigate him further. They might have subpoenaed every last email, and some of it may have been deleted, and maybe there's questions about when and why it was deleted.
Do you think it is possible, regardless of the truth of the matter, that so extensive a set of years-long investigations might convince his political opponents, and even a lot of skeptical independents, that he was an irredeemable criminal - regardless of what his actual behavior was? That there must be fire, if there's so much smoke?
Why, they might have even found a way to cast some of his charitable work in a negative light.
Please think it through. Think about what you know about our polarized political atmosphere, and imagine what we would have done to Colin Powell in this circumstance.