How Did They Do?: Senator Hillary Clinton

Were there any winners or losers in tonight’s debate?  I’d be inclined to say the answer to both questions is no.  The debate was formatted in such a way that the participants seldom engaged each other, and there were not enough questions to any individual candidate to hang him or herself. In that respect, Sen. Hillary Clinton did no better or worse than her opponents, and if that is praise, it is faint praise indeed.

more insideClinton had no good one-liners like Joseph Biden (“Can you be succinct?” “Yes.”), Gov. Bill Richardson (“Being stubborn is not a foreign policy.”), or former Senator Mike Gravel (“The only thing worse than soldiers dying in vain is MORE soldiers dying in vain.”).  She provided steady, albeit unexciting, answers to her questions and performed much as you would expect a well-coached candidate to perform.  And, in light of the questions that seemed to be pitched at a faster speed (“Is Wal-mart good or bad?”) in comparison to the more nicely lobbed softballs other received (“Who is your moral guide?”), doing exactly as well as the audience expected is not a bad thing.

There was one deviation from the script however, and there is a possibility it could make or break her campaign.  When asked about the massacre at Virgina Tech, Clinton mentioned the shooting at Columbine, and she teared up.

Was this a Pat Schroeder moment that could haunt Clinton?  Or could the tears in her eyes possibly sway the folk who think Clinton is heartless and robotic?  When Schroeder cried, people claimed that she “set back women’s chances for the White House by 20 years.”  That was 1987.

It’s 20 years later.  Let’s see what happens.