The editors concede that "Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives." Now, "role", I understand: it must mean as wife of a governor, as First Lady and as Secretary of State. But "prerogatives"? My Oxford English Dictionary defines a prerogative as "The special right or privilege exercised by a monarch or head of State over all other people, which overrides the law and is in theory subject to no restriction." We know that Barack Obama feels he possesses such prerogatives, the Constitution notwithstanding. But this is the first time a Hillary Clinton supporter has suggested that she can reasonably claim to protect her very own prerogatives.
Onward into the editorial. Clinton's tendency to "hunker down when challenged is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters…". Really—"less pleasing in manner or behavior"? That's all? What about "less honest", which is how she seems to many voters? The pity of all this is that the IG report increases the challenge Mrs. Clinton faces "in proving that she is the well-qualified politician her supporters know her to be…". Those editors can really be hard on a person when they choose to. And if Mrs. Clinton is a well-qualified "politician" then it must take a particularly deft politician, say, an aging socialist, to give her a run for her money with voters who lately are finding her "less personable."
But worry not for the future of Mrs. Clinton. The Times has a solution. She "has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly." Oh. Let's think a minute how she might do that. "I lied when I said I had permission of the State Department to use a private server. I also lied when I said I had turned over all my emails to the Department. I lied when I said I never, ever sent or received classified material on my private email." That's real candor, and her "best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency," conclude the men at the headquarters of the Old Gray Lady. "Larger" than….?