Clinton did not come by this apology willingly. You could see it on her face in the ABC interview, in which she wore a smile meant to convey warmth and transparency that presented instead as a rictus of barely-concealed contempt. Further evidence was offered up by a New York Times account of the backstory: Close friends and senior operatives, seized by growing alarm over the threat posed by the email flap, finally succeeded in prevailing on a candidate who maintains privately she did nothing wrong.

And why should Clinton apologize, when Trump daily defies our most basic conventions of decency without so much as a shrug? In part because some double standards are deserved. We expect more from a former two-term Senator and Secretary of State than we do a glorified carnival barker. Not to mention the qualitative distinction between their transgressions — nothing Trump’s done has prompted a national security review by the Justice Department.

Yet as a matter of strategy, the two don’t occupy parallel universes. Clinton could learn a leadership lesson from Trump’s uninterrupted rise, though it may be too late to apply it. Jeffrey Pfeffer, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor, says Trump’s unapologetic bombast is precisely what draws people to him, despite what qualities they might otherwise claim to want in a leader. Pfeffer’s new book, Leadership BS, argues that honesty and humility are overrated. What people seek in their leaders instead is forceful self-promotion bordering on narcissism that crowds out any consideration of uncertainty. And Clinton has appeared to be equivocating since she first addressed the email issue back in a March press conference, acknowledging at the time her decision to set up a private server was likely inadvisable in retrospect. “Once you start retreating, the question becomes where do you stop?” Pfeffer says. “This will continue. There’s blood in the water.”