The congealing CW is that Hillary "stumbled" in yesterday's debate, giving other candidates an opening for attack.
After a rare night of fumbles by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to maximize the damage yesterday, even as her advisers argued that the "piling on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp.
Clinton strategists grudgingly acknowledged that the performance in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia was not her finest and they sought to contain the fallout. They worked to clarify her muddled response to a question about whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- she backs it, they said -- and quickly produced a video, titled "The Politics of Pile-On," splicing together in rapid-fire fashion her rivals' attacks from the event.
With little more than two months until the first primary contest, in Iowa, strategists for all the Democratic contenders agreed that the debate marked a turning point and would open a newly aggressive phase in the race.
I watched the debate, and honestly, while not her best performance, I don't know if I'd call it a "night of fumbles". I guess it's all relative. But we're witnessing the power of the media to create and shape the conventional wisdom.
The same people who have been telling us for years that Hillary was inevitable, are now apparently hoping for a real contest. If so, then good. We need one of those anyway. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll even get Hillary to explain to us why she wants to be president.
I know Edwards is running because of the disparities of the Two Americas. I know Dodd is running to restore our Constitution. I know Obama is running because he wrote a great speech back in 2004 (or something like that).
But Hillary? If this stops becoming a coronation, maybe we'll get a rationale for her candidacy after all. She's clearly felt no need to give us one thus far.
Comments are closed on this story.