I think Clinton is a neo-liberal neocon who never saw a war or regime change she didn't like. I think Trump, the bigoted buffoon without a lip governor, would be far less destructive as President.
But campaign strategizing is part of the game.
It's good to show the sausage being made and good to see what candidates see as their weaknesses. I appreciate this piece and others I've seen from you. What I was addressing is this: "In other words, the Clinton campaign was perfectly willing to engage in a brazen act of press manipulation so long as they could be certain it would benefit and not hurt the campaign."
All campaigns engage in brazen acts of press manipulation. It's the job of campaign managers to see they do so.
There's is much wrong with Clinton's campaign, so many differences between what she's said/done and what's she's campaigning as, that I think characterizing ordinary politicking as a brazen act is a distraction.