The Great Media Pile-On

"The release of the statement suggested her advisers believed it was politically wiser to embrace a position that could clearly hurt her in a general election rather than risk providing more fuel to what has emerged as a damaging line of criticism: That she, taking advantage of her dominant position in some polls, is not being candid about her views and about would she would do as president."

The Boston Globe makes a discovery:

"Hillary Clinton won't say how she will fix Social Security. She spurns a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. She's for free trade, except when it doesn't work. She defends her home state's issuing of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but doesn't really like the idea.

"Yet a closer look reveals one thing Clinton has been quite explicit about - that as she campaigns, she is being careful to preserve her options as president if she goes on to win. While her speeches, debate performances, and policy prescriptions often feature hedging, Clinton has been startlingly straightforward about her refusal to be pinned down."

Andrew Sullivan keeps up his anti-Hillary barrage:

"The obvious loser was Senator Clinton. Her constant calculation, careful parsing, avoidance of direct answers to direct questions: all these were reminders of a pure politician. She's obviously capable, extremely intelligent, and so hollow you could almost hear the focus-grouped platitudes echo within her. She also lost that new-Clinton benign smile, that newly poll-tested glow. Instead we got an occasionally droning, lecturing, and unrelenting stream of tight-faced opportunism.

"As someone who thinks Obama is still the best bet for real change in this election, I kept feeling underwhelmed by his performance. You wait for him to go in for the kill . . . and . . . he . . . never . . . quite gets there. He seems to be possessed of an almost pathological high-mindedness, and an inability to encapsulate his arguments in ways that get traction against his opponents. There were times when his oratorical high-point was the word 'actuarial.' If this is how he performs after we're told he's taking the gloves off, Rudy Giuliani must be licking his chops . . .

"Stop being so fricking reasonable and above it all. His response to the Romney Osama-Obama smear was - sorry to say - pathetic. He can't get mad at these racist attacks?"

Rich Lowry gives HRC her due but says she needs charm lessons:

"Hillary won. She was authoritative, as usual, and fended off all the attacks from Edwards, Obama, and Williams/Russert. This was a full-on assault from all quarters and she handled herself ably. On Iran, she was persuasive, emphasizing the need for sanctions as part of the diplomacy. In general, she's far and away the most serious Democrat on national security. But she attacks Bush and Cheney just as harshly as any of the other Democrats, which makes it difficult for anyone to make the 'not liberal enough' or 'trying to act Republican' charge to stick.

"Obama was tentative and long-winded; he's not comfortable with landing punches. Edwards was crisper and more effective, but doesn't have a lot of credibility. And to the extent he gains, it hurts Obama and helps Hillary who benefits from a divided opposition. Hillary's weaknesses were on two fronts. One is likeability. She didn't bring any of her practiced charm tonight. But that needn't matter as long as she's confidence-inspiring, as she is--unflappable and well-informed.

"The other is flip-flopping/dodginess. She never really answered this charge even though it came up repeatedly, and in fact she fueled it. She had to come back a couple of times and say, 'No, that's not what I meant' because she was delivering answers so finely crafted to avoid committing herself to anything controversial. Of course, with her driver's license answer, she ended on an extremely dodgy note."