Here’s the truly sad news about Here's the truly sad news about Hillary Clinton today. In a way, she blew a great opportunity during last night's debate to do something dramatic: To reverse her negatives, remove the doubts about her as a Democratic team player, punch the media bigwigs (including her hubby’s own former deputy!) square in the jaw, and score major points with Pennsylvania voters. And all she had to do was remember how crass Barack Obama looked at key moments of their (three-way, with John Edwards) debate back in January in New Hampshire, and do the reverse by interrupting Georgie and Charlie at some point around the 30-minute mark, following all those dumb questions, look down at her watch and say something like this:
May I interject for a second before Barack answers that question? We're about a half hour into this debate and all you two have done is raise ridiculous, distracting issues that most voters don't care about, yet you and others in the chattering classes are obsessed with. This is a debate about the near-term future of the Democratic Party and the long-term future of the country, so I'm sorry to inform you that it's not a contest to see who can generate the coolest televised sound bite to brag about at next week's correspondents dinner. George, having worked in the War Room during our 1992 campaign, you've been on the other side and ought to know better. And Charlie, you've been around far too long not to know better yourself. I'm not saying we shouldn't be asked tough questions; we should, of course. But so far none of this stuff you've raised is breaking new ground, and meanwhile somewhere in America people are going to bed without health insurance or money for this month's rent or food on the table, while some of our troops won't get to go to bed tonight at all because they're standing a post in Iraq. And you two want to talk about flag lapel pins? Ask a serious question or just let Barack and I have a debate between ourselves with the remaining time. It would be a helluva lot more productive—not to mention informative and probably entertaining—than what's happened so far.
The audience would have erupted, I bet. Clinton would have looked like a total pro, a rhetorical ace of her husband's magnitude—magnanimous toward her opponent, serious about all the things she claims matter most to her, and tough as nails. And she would have scored points with independent and even Republicans who share her own disdain for the national media. It would have been an electoral home run. But her lesser political instincts, as ever, got the best of her.
--Tom Schaller
