Clinton can't have it both ways

Of recent, Ms. Clinton attempts to deflect justifiable criticism and concern of her by blaming subordinates, including her members of her innermost circle.  

As one working to persuade the American electorate that she is the leader for the future, she can not have it both ways.

Basic, elementary leadership means willingly accepting responsibility for everything your organization does or fails to do.  Good leaders know and practice this.  For example, in the military it is not uncommon for the commanding officer to held absolutely responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates.  This includes being relieved for cause, as the military saying goes.  Such as the commanding officer of a navy ship being relieved after it runs aground, even if he/she were asleep in his/her stateroom at the time of the grounding.

But Clinton, who demands that her adversaries be held to this very high standard of responsibility for the actions and words of their subordinates, wants to be a leader in name only.  

She seeks all the authority, without any of the responsibility.

In a recent situation, her advocates seek to deflect criticism of possible pay-to-play actions in the state department during her tenure, arising from emails revealing direct contact between her aides and those of former President Clinton, by saying she did not personally communicate with the external parties by email.  

Sure, two of her most trusted and closest aides did so, but according to her and others, she is not to be held responsible.

Simple answer...wrong!

The real leader creates a climate in which his/her subordinates, including the inner, personal staff, operate and for which he/she is responsible.  This climate sets the tone for the organization.  And it establishes that responsibility goes right to the top.  Responsibility for anything that is done or failed to be done. 

A leader can delegate authority to act in their name, but not the responsibility for the outcome of those actions.

The leader holds subordinates accountable for their actions in pursuit of the objectives the leader sets, and taken within the climate he/she establishes.  It is inconceivable that Clinton's closest and most trusted innermost staff would act on such high matters (described in one revealed email as on behalf of a "very imortant" person) without either her explicit approval (which did not need to be recorded in an email) or within their understanding of the objectives and climate she expressly set.  

Since no one was fired, the public can rightfully conclude the actions of Mills and Abedin (and others) have been and continue to be exactly what Clinton directs and desires.

Thus, in this latest of many, many questionable (if not criminal at worst or unethical at best) actions, Clinton can not have it both ways.  She can not stand for the most important leadership position within the country, seeking all the authority that comes with the office, and simultaneously seek to avoid the basic tenet of leadership: responsibility.