From reading this essay, one might just surmise that various ‘reporters’ contributed parts of it, and then the editors cobbled together the final version, in a long but productive conference: Neo-Liberals have many points of agreement.The point of the conference was to appeal rhetorically to the Economist’s conservative readership while maintaining the journalistic notion of ‘objectivity’, or at the least it’s facsimile.
‘Yet to a left-wing crowd’: The Left is the invented enemy of the Economist collective political imagination. Senator Warren is a New Deal Democrat, Ms. Clinton’s only possible political rival, at this point, who might be characterized as another dread political creature the Populist Horde, Senator Warren being it titular leader.
One of the most prominent Neo-Liberal front groups that is mentioned in the essay is The Center for American Progress, the pubic relations ploy of this organization is that it is ‘Politically Progressive’, while being staunchly Neo-Liberal: Ms. Clinton rhetorically frames her economic philosophy as “the American model of free markets for free people”. Mr. Summers and his ally Mr. Rubin are the ‘free people’ she refers to, one might even add Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Dimon to the list.
Ms. Clinton is the stogy Neo-Liberal Democratic candidate of that Summers/Rubin economic wing of the Party. But her appeal on Foreign Policy is to Neo-Conservatives like William Kristol and Jeffrey Goldberg, if we can judge from their political enthusiasm of months ago? See Mr. Goldberg’s enthusiastic interview from August 10, 2014, in which she declares her policy independence from President Obama, with Mr. Goldberg cheering her on.Call this quoted paragraph obsequious,indeed pandering to the Clinton ego !
‘What follows is a transcript of our conversation. It has been edited for clarity but not for length, as you will see. Two other things to look for: First, the masterful way in which Clinton says she has drawn no conclusions about events in Syria and elsewhere, and then draws rigorously reasoned conclusions. Second, her fascinating and complicated analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ill-fated dalliance with democracy.’
As for the e mail issue, the question is or might be, what person who holds public office has the right to edit or delete pertinent items from the public record? Even if the issue is classified material, future historians will or might use that information to offer necessary historical insights. The Clinton ego/arrogance on full display!