I looked at it live, then on tape several times. So, I think I understand what happened. I suggest, politely, that Hillary's performance at the last MSNBC debate was shaky. Was it surprising, given the preparation her image-keepers give her with every "appearance"? A bit. Then again, maybe not.
It could be that this is the first time in her career that she has run up against true adversity.
Before her attack staff her get their fangs out, wait a sec. Think it through. On every other issue, since her days in Arkansas, her role was different. Any attacks were on her clients or some events, not directed to her. That debate was truly a first. For the first time, people examined her positions and stances under a harsh, bright light. That has simply not happened before.
When Hill and Bill ran for president, Bill was taking the personal heat, not she. In fact, many commentators felt that any attack on her would recoil and come back to bite the attacker. Obviously, she felt the heat, and she felt the strength of the attacks on Bill, but they were not permanent. Nor were they truly attacks on her personally.
During the health care fiasco during Bill''s first term, the heat was not on her positions, nor on her. It was directed to the secrecy, the lack of communication with interest groups who had a valid interest in being involved. Again, it was as though an attorney was protecting a client, and the client was the health care system her committee was creating. She was still treated with kid gloves, as though the national press was afraid to attack a woman.
When the scandals of Bill's womanizing began to break, most people, especially by those we know as swift-boaters, or other Scaife-based attack mongrels, I'd say that 99% of the heat was directed to Bill, and none to her. To the contrary, people felt mixed feelings toward her. Some felt sorry, embarrassed, angry on her behalf, and others wondered why she didn't leave him.
Sure, she felt uncomfortable, but she was not under the microscope.
Perhaps one event did impact her directly, and even that was at an event intended to be a roast. When Don Imus inquired as to the surprise finding of her long missing legal billing records from Arkansas, that was the first time that anyone came close to pursuing her directly on her personal actions and stances. If you recall, Imus was chastized strongly by moderates, liberals, even a few conservatives because of it. So much for a sustained attack.
When Hill ran for senate, a few people dared ask the question of whether that was part of a long term plan to run for president. She denied it, and stated that her only goal was to represent her newly adopted state. And for four years, she quieted any questions by doing just that.
Even during that first campaign and her re-election campaign, people wondered how she would handle the heat from the rabid NY press. Except, in 2000, there wasn't any. The media sat back and threw soft balls at her. There was no attack dog mentality, and no hard questioning.
The same occured during her re-election.
It is safe to say that for the first time, Hillary was finally placed under the microscope as an individual, a politician, and as a person with particular policies in mind. For the year leading up to that debate, she was noted for running a cautious, careful, nuanced, and poll-driven campaign, refusing to take the lead on any hard issue. For some time that served her purposes well. But things have changed.
Hillary now has to take a stance, and for the first time in her political career, that stance has come under fire. And being so new at this, she wilted. She hesitated, tried to triangulate, and worse, she tried to repair the damage the morning after. But the morning after pill applies to sex, not political campaigns, and what got screwed was her campaign. Hillary's errors and insecurity on key issues became obvious. Having reviewed some of her answers several times, I cannot help but think that this is the first of many attacks on her, and that she has made herself vulnerable to them.
Her first, and worst, mistake was to bitch. (And yes, I use that term deliberately) She and her staffers complained that others were ganging up on her. That is not one mistake, that is three mistakes, all huge.
- you NEVER complain in a political campaign that others are ganging up on you.
That shows immaturity, fear, and lack of political savvy and awareness. The instant that a campaign complains in public that others were being mean, the hound dogs have a scent of something. Most failed pols know what it is - it is the stench of defeat, of vulnerability, of fear. Once you get it, it never goes away.
- You laugh criticism off
It is almost inconceivable how badly she and her handlers dealt with her debate disaster. A pro would laugh, loud, strong, and in public, not bitch about the meanie guys who were attacking her. Instead, she and her image keepers did everything wrong. And even now, they still don't get it. This will continue to compound a problem of their own making. Once she/they complained that people were ganging up on her (they gang up on EVERY front runner! IT IS THAT SIMPLE) she looked weak. For a candidate running on "strength", such a description or complaint is a kiss of death.
- She managed to inject sex into the debate.
In the worst possible way. At the worst possible time. For one full year, strength, consistancy, and preparation were her trademarks. As of this week, playing on her sex, (those mean GUYS are attacking me, make the bad men stop!) has put into question all of those attributes that she constructed over time and with much effort. If she cannot deal strongly and professionally with members of her own party that disagree with her in public, how can she be expected to deal with Putin? By looking into his soul? How can she stand up to Osama Bin Laden, the House of Saud, an angry Mexican president, or a whole middle eastern region that has learned to hate us?
She made herself look weak and ineffectual, and she made it worse by complaining about it.