“Clinton’s public record is long, deep, scrutinized, and hacked,” writes Ezra Klein, “Trump’s record is thinner, shorter, and protected by secrecy and NDAs.” He points out the irony of openness:
There’s an irony to Clinton’s relationship with the press, Aftergood observes. “She tries to keep things secret, and that leads to their ultimate disclosure. People make accusations against her, and the effort to refute them leads to more disclosure.” The result is someone who seems secretive — who perhaps is secretive — but who has ended up divulging more information about her personal life, her political operation, her policy process, her daily schedule, and her financial dealings than any candidate in memory. Yet we react less to the information we get than to her reluctance to release it and her demeanor when she does — we prize the performance of openness more than the openness itself.
It’s all about perception. When you act secretive, people will assume that you have something to hide. When you act openly, they don’t question your secrecy. I hope this lesson won’t cost Hillary the election and our country four years of nightmares.