After a week of lame attempts to point the finger at everyone else but herself, having surrogates make absurd claims of sexism and "swiftboating" in reference to various people trying to get a straight answer, Hillary needs to do more than recognize that her performance in the debate was not her best.

Repudiating the asinine attempts to spin over the last week would be a good start. Giving straight answers to questions would also be needed.

Her image and her campaign are both torn asunder. If she wants to stop the hemorrhaging and retain any possibility of winning the nomination she needs to change how she has operated over the last 20-30 years. No more secretive meetings that exclude all but her chosen few. No more evasive answers. No more hyperbolic reactions to criticism.

I don't get the political logic of this statement:

"I wasn't at my best the other night. We've had a bunch of debates and I wouldn't rank that up in my very top list."

Is Clinton suggesting this wasn't her best performance but not her worst either? Does that latter implication help her? Is this an attempt at a joke?

I just don't get why admitting you performed poorly but only in a half-hearted way is a good idea--it seems to feed right back into the very meme you are trying to deal with.

This whole obsession over HRC's debate performance resembles the arcane, centuries-long debates over the finer points of Christian theology in the Byzantine Empire.

No one, absolutely no one in the real world gives a rat's ass about this stuff. It is utterly meaningless and leads nowhere but back into your own head.

I also find it quite hilarious that a bunch of people who claim to despise the ethos that televised debates represent would be so fixated on a candidate's performance in one.....

Riiiight, Jim. No one's paying attention at all. That's why her campaign's been spinning like the gyro unit of a guided missle all week and why she sent out Big Dawg to drop the Swift-Bomb today.

All this insistance from the Hillaroids that everything is still perfectly fine is beginning to remind me of that the way the Congressional Republicans were talking in early '06.

I have never wanted Hillary to be president and think she is dishonest. But now she's really getting irritating.
Now she says one thing and then sends her bully machine out to say the opposite - wink wink.

So, whats' your message now Hillary? The evil men weren't so evil ganging up on you in the debate? You didn't perform well, so it wasn't all Tim Russerts' fault? Or maybe, the public and the media are catching on to your game: say nothing of substance, equivocate on every issue, pander to all possible voters, talk the strong candidate until you're tripped up then play the vicitm or call Bill in to set them straight, rail against Bush and Chaney and then support them on Iraq and Iran. We need leadership and change, not Hillary.

John Petty, the Clintons are good waging war with the Republicans, and it will continue for her whole term if Hillary is elected president. The real winners in the partisan wars are the corporate profiteers: oil, defense contractors, health care/drug companies, banks. These special interests own the Bushes and the Clintons and the Congress. They are deeply invested in protecting the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo. Hillary is the status quo candidate, and "fighting" Republicans is all show. She votes with them and would continue their policies.

Basically, the press gets to determine who the winner is. Now the press will say "Hillary makes a triumphant comeback" after the next debate and everyone will eat it up. And when Giuliani is chosen as the GOP candidate the press will ask "Can he beat Hillary?" and secure an easy road to the White House.

Well, this should have been her response all along. The campaign finally must have realized that after flailing for the past week. Still, I don't think "I'll have a bipartisan commission to study it" is a "straight" answer. That's sort of. . . you know. . . cutting the public out of the conversation. I know this doesn't fit what Hillary wants to put out there, but it seems to me that the press has done Hillary a favor by focusing on the DL question, which she can somewhat fairly claim isn't an issue for a presidential campaign. Her waffling on Iran, social security, and tax policy could have received more attention.

"No more hyperbolic responses to criticism."

This is the best advice that the Hillary campaign could possibly get. IF she makes it to the general election, they are going to have to do a much, much better job striking the right tone.

Bill and Hill are spinning mightily because of what Ezra Klein wrote. Immigration is the one issue that the GOP wins nationally on.

Ezra wrote:

being pretty concerned about the role immigration will play in the coming election. Not only is it an increasingly acute -- and motivating -- concern for voters, but it's quite literally the last issue area in which polls show Republicans with the lead. They've lost it on terrorism, taxes, Iraq...but they've got it on immigration.

That's why the hubbub over Hillary Clinton's driver's license" answer worried me. The sentence summary that came out of that debate -- "Hillary Clinton was evasive and muddled while trying to obscure her support for granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants" -- had two parts. Hillary's competitors were trying to say "Hillary Clinton was evasive and muddled while trying to obscure her support for granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants." What I think people heard was, "Hillary Clinton was evasive and muddled while trying to obscure her support for granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants." And that's a line that will nail any of the Democrats.

Democrats have won the Kentucky governship!!! And they look great in Virginia's Senate for now.

She's been clear about where she stands????? And, I'm the king of siam.

Anybody but clinton II in 08.

The fact remains she is a woman and can't help but run as one. Life is not gender neutral.But she is not using her sex. There is a differnce. Don't you think that if Russert and Williams and all the other candidates had hit on Obama somebody would have called it racist? She still remains the smartest,toughest and best qualified candidate-and the most caring about others.

Ho hum is right.

Draft Nader!

Look, "not talking about it" isn't an option. People are already slamming her for not being forthright, and not addressing the issues, and the talking heads and the other candidates will keep talking about it even if Hillary hushes up. Kerry's biggest problem with the Swift Boating (and no, Hillary wasn't "SwiftBoated") was that Kerry didn't respond for too long.

Hillary's simply observing the obvious - she didn't have her best debate. Was it her worst? Who gives a f.... Did much have to do with moderators' biting, leading questions? (See Daily Howler to see what I'm talking about) Sure. But that's part of the turf she has to deal with. Does it have much to do with issues? Not really, one's about supporting a Governor doing something/anything to a lack of Federal leadership, another's about the perennial search for more Clinton documents to pick through.

But God, people here talk about her "bullying" machine. Hell, someone mentioned in that stupid book on her that in how she tried to get Congressmen to switch on HillaryCare in '94. Folks, watch the Republicans bully their own to get them to line up for a vote, how they'll illegally delay a vote to walk up and down the aisles with envelopes convincing any wafflers or those completely on the other side to switch. That's bullying. And it works. Write Pelosi, write Reid - tell them to buy a patented "Bullying Machine". Unfortunately, that's not what any Democrat has, and that's why Bluedog Democrats and Republicans have more power than progressives. If Hillary has a bullying machine, she needs one with more horsepower.

She and Bill are the only ones who know how to beat the Repubs. Let them do it. Please.

I followed the links and watched the interview of Hillary by Candy Crowley in which Hillary said it was not her best debate.

#1, it was really strange, and maybe it was the camera angle or something, but Hillary's face looked chipmunky wider than her usual face.......not that the facial thing is important......just that it was a bit bewildering. I wonder if anyone else noticed this?

#2, Crowley gave Hillary Clinton the opportunity to clear up the issues of a] the drivers' licensing of illegals and b] the archived records.
a] On the driver's licensing matter, Hillary did an effective framing of the issue, but fully declined to take a position, saying the answer depended upon which state was involved. Of course, Crowley failed to folllow up Hillary's answer with the pertinent question which would have been, "Ok, you are saying that this depends upon the specific state and that state's situation with illegals... so, being the Senator from the State of New York, you certainly must have a position as to what your state's governor should be doing. What is your position with respect to that issue in the state which you represent?
b] On the matter of the Clinton White House archived records not being available in time for the primaries, Hillary was forceful in saying that her hands are tied in releasing records because, by law, those records must first be reviewed by archivists. She also stressed that Bill Clinton is unique among ex-presidents in trying to hurry along that process. Again, Crowley missed the proper follow-up question, which would have been, "In light of the situation you describe about the archived records, it would seem to be even more important that you offer disclosure in areas where your hands are not tied. Will you follow your competitor's example and make full disclosures of your income tax records, your earmark requests, and the contributors to the Clinton Global Inititative?

#1, it was really strange, and maybe it was the camera angle or something, but Hillary's face looked chipmunky wider than her usual face.......not that the facial thing is important......just that it was a bit bewildering. I wonder if anyone else noticed this?

Were you maybe watching the debate on a wide screen TV? Unless you're watching an HD broadcast or a cinema formatted DVD, they're just taking the regular image and stretching it out to fit the wider screen. Annoys the hell out of me. I sometimes think the spike in obesity in the USA the past few years might be partly attributable to people watching sports on those things and thinking the athletes are that fat. (We'll see if the numbers come down now that HD is becoming more widely available.)

Wow Hillary can actually say it was over 5,000 mark - was she or her people actually counting all questions? She could not even answer the VP question, she had to be asked twice by Candy. Hillary also stated she knows it's not a gender race...that's a surprise to me when her remarks and ads more than implied that this was, all this scares me about Hillary. Then add her husband to the mix who could not even be honest under oath and lied straight faced plus recently compared swift boat ads to the last debate. If this is how Hillary is going to run her Presidency I want no part of it. Some say Hillary and Bill are 2 different people...they have been running on the track for very long time and surely Hillary must of ok'd the swift boat remark that Bill made...it's her campaign...because if she did not then she must have little control over her husband and his remarks. All in all are people not seeing the implications of voting for Hillary Clinton? You wonder why she changed her name in the beginning from Rodham to Clinton, or why she did not separate herself from Bill during his trials? We can be sentimental and we can also say Hillary needs Bill or at least she thinks she does or her people do...I don't think Bill is doing her any favors being fore front in her campaign.

Desider, on the driver's license issue, I personally think it's dumb to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. I am not anti-illegal immigrant. There should be a comprehensive plan to rectify the situation. However, she should address it because immigration is a federal issue, not a state issue and states shouldn't be issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens. Simple answer, hmmm. So what if she pisses spitzer off, as the polls show she is ahead in NY by what, 40% or so. What about pissing off the rest of the country off?

Of course your comment takes the records issue to the extreme. She isn't running on her 4th grade "experience." She is running on her alleged white house "experience." I believe in full disclosure. Can you see the repuke attack adds if she gets the nomination? It will be awful. So why not address it now and defuse the situation? It makes no sense.

Finally, I want to come back to a point you raised before on the experience issue claiming that I begrudged clinton II for being given an opportunity by being given a senate seat on a silver platter. You tried to raise gore, who I personally like and wish would run. He already won once and would make a great president. Also, you raised other politicians who got a break based on a famous parent, not spouse.

Well, the problem I have with clinton II is that she has been running for president since her first day in the senate, but without a thing on her resume, other than being first lady. She has been spending more time preparing to run than doing a gd thing in the senate, other then giving the king a blank check to start a war for the heck of it. Basically, your comparison implies that the minute gore for instance got in the senate, he said gee, I want to be president now, without doing a gd thing, and I plan on running next time around for president. He would have been laughed out of politics.

Look at what Pelosi has done as speaker and through a long political career. She got a hand from her political father, but she ran with the opportunity and did something with it.

The same could be said for Gore, he had a famous political father, but he took the opportunity and did something with it.

Bush II was a fool and did nothing to warrant being president. If the last 7 years don't tell you that you are blind. Bush II is more of a comparison to clinton II. No experience to speak of and look what he has done to our country.

You also raised Kerry and McCain, because they are married to rich women. Kerry and McCain are no comparison and apples and oranges. Do you actually think Kerry and McCain's spouses are giving them money? Also, they did something with the opportunity given to them. Clinton II has not.

Bottom line, none of these politicians compare to clinton II. They did something, anything, warranting consideration. Clinton II didn't.

Correction: Hillary said she *wouldn't* run in 2004 and didn't.

For what it's worth. Good post Desider. One point though, I don't hate your candidate. I don't hate anyone, even the king. Why is the mantra from the "hillary" camp, if you are not with her, you are a "hillary-hater"? I really don't get it. It tries to debase and squelch any discourse, which is really undemocratic.

On your disclosure point, you raise some very good points and also a major vulnerability point concerning clinton II. I agree noone is or should be required to release everything, but your candidate has a ton of baggage and I am sure that you can see the "experience" campaign ads against your candidate by the repukes. Her white house experience will be summed up by the repuke attacks from the 90's, whitewater, the rose lawfirm, the travel office stuff, the health care reform debacle, etc. And then, at the end of the commercial, it will be what else is she trying to hide. I would defuse it now and release the stuff, unless there is something to hide.

Also, on your dress size comment, that really plays into the point about our pathetic media. You are correct, the focus will be on nonsense as opposed to substance, but maybe that's not a bad thing for your candidate and I don't mean that in a bad way.

On obama, no I am not complaining and the reason why is he isn't running around claiming all this experience and he wasn't handed the seat on a silver platter. Also, he isn't triple talking and he is taking positions. Incidentally, I am not an obama supporter yet, but I am leaning that way. I have also made critical posts about obama. If I were him I would name some highly experienced people to some cabinet posts now or soon. He doesn't have the experience, but he does have good judgment and he doesn't have the clinton II baggage.

On the 2000 general election debates, I agree the king was treated like a puff ball and has been ever since by the media. WTF. Did he buy the media or what? Does that make it right? No. Also, Gore was skewered by the media in 2000, it really makes you wonder what is going on. I want all candidates, whatever party, skewered. I want answers not fluff so that I can make an informed decision. Also, obama was skewered in that debate on his "experience" and obama and his supporters weren't complaining like your candidate and her supporters are complaining about the little heat that your candidate got at this last debate.

Also, your candidate has gotten pretty much a free pass from the media to date. It really concerns me, because if she is the nominee, they may change their tune. The media isn't doing a gd thing except talking about her dress size. I wonder why again. I want to know now, not after it's too late.

Anyway, good post.