But one of the big reasons those words could be so damaging hasn't gotten as much attention: They could very well open yet another front for her campaign to battle as the email saga now seems sure to linger in the presidential race. In calling Clinton "extremely careless," Comey, in effect, raised questions about the competence and attention to detail that have long been held up as her strong suits. By questioning one of her strengths, the phrase could end up being more problematic for her campaign than one that had simply reinforced existing themes, such as questions about her honesty or untrustworthiness.

Indeed, the actual dictionary antonyms of "careless" -- words like guarded, attentive or cautious -- are regularly used to describe Clinton. In poll after poll, her highest ratings tend to be for her readiness, her proficiency and her qualifications.

AD

AD

An Associated Press-GfK poll from March found that she scored much better over time on traits like competence and decisiveness rather than likability or honesty. A Gallup poll from June found that Clinton bested Trump on experience more than any other presidential quality. Back in May, a Gallup poll found that the only two leadership traits where she out-scored every other candidate (which at the time included Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders) were being prepared and analytical -- the opposite of "careless."

Meanwhile, she is frequently called the "detail-oriented policy wonk," alternately described as the consummate professional or the soulless workaholic, depending on the views of the person speaking. For instance, President Obama, who took to the campaign trail for the first time Tuesday on her behalf, told a packed crowd "there has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton — ever."

Yet conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently tried to decipher why she's "disliked" by saying we don't know anything about what she does for fun. "Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful," he wrote. "It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role." Not a rosy description, to be sure, but not of a careless person, either.

AD

AD

From her years as First Lady to her current one as the presumed Democratic nominee, Clinton's capabilities, her thoroughness and her attention to detail repeatedly come up as defining features. In Rebecca Traister's recent New York Magazine profile, she wrote that "there is seemingly no crisis too small to escape [Clinton's] attention, no subject outside her wheelhouse;" that "when she turns her energies onto bigger issues ... everything can sound like a parody of female hypercompetence." Back in 1994, in describing her painstaking efforts on behalf of health-care reform, a New Yorker profile even called it a potential risk -- one "that her acumen and high competence, unadorned, would narrow her public appeal"

It's possible, of course, that Comey's comment will simply bounce off Clinton's long-cultivated armor of competence. To her supporters, it's unlikely to dent their views on her lengthy career; critics who complain about her lack of honesty probably weren't going to vote for her anyways.

Moreover, the most damaging critiques for leaders are often those that fit into preexisting narratives about their flaws, rather than those that contradict prevailing views. When it's harder to counter the critique with other evidence, it can strengthen, rather than weaken, the stereotype.

AD

AD

Still, the "extremely careless" phrase could well leave its mark. Coming from a law enforcement official who has served both political parties and not shied away from conflict with either, it bears plenty of weight. The remark could open up yet another front for Clinton's campaign to have to argue and defend. And of course, scrupulous, prudent, careful management of the work government does -- and the rules by which they serve -- is not a sideline issue, but a core trait voters look for in their leaders.