I think part of the reason so many politicians appear so scripted and rehearsed is because that's the way to avoid those traps. Hillary gets asked a question about something she's weak on and she pivots to a rehearsed talking point about something she's strong on. People call it robotic and unemotional and deceptive and whatever, but it's better than trying to address a weak issue and only making yourself appear more weak.

When you get hit with something you're weak on, the best thing to do is acknowledge it as briefly as possible and then shift to a strength. If you go on and on about the weakness, that's what everyone will remember. If you shift to a strength, that's what everyone will remember.

Trump is incapable of doing that. He dwells on his weaknesses, assuming people will change their minds if he tries to reason his way out of them. That's the trap. They won't change their minds, they'll just have a stronger memory for those weakness.

@1: I actually believe HRC could refute the topics she's "weak" on: emails, Benghazi, WJC's liasons. ISIL, Libya, etc. she spent 11 hours in front of a congressional committee over Benghazi.

but putting them in context, defending herself, costs valuable time during a debate. time that is better spent making a positive case.

Male politicians pivots (SQUIRREL!) AND refuse to answer questions ALL THE TIME, and no one calls them robotic, or too rehearsed, or untrustworthy. They're called skilled, and seasoned! Trump cheats his employees and his customers, refuses to pay his bills and his taxes, advocates that the US shouldn't pay our debts and honor our commitments, and we have the "God-fearing" mass calling him SMART BUSINESSMAN, someone who can Make America Cheat, Rob and Plunder, er, Great, Again! Hillary charges high fees - commensurate with her experience and skills - for her speeches, and she's greedy, dishonest, crooked! If she was a man, the higher the fees she can get, the more admired and lauded she would be.

I really was too young (and too broken) to pay a lot of attention during the Bill Clinton years, so I've been trying to understand all the Hillary hate. I've come to believe it's institutional misogyny. There are women who hates her for not divorcing her husband; there are women who hates her for not just being the Bushes' and (GAG!) Reagan's type of First Lady. Why couldn't she just be contented with reading to children and promoting reading (in FRANCE, cause the French really NEED to read MORE!), and fake smiles through all the state dinners? How dare she attempt to write policy!

However Secretary Clinton feels about the value of money, I believe that she, unlike many of our politicians, really understands what it is like to be poor, and to struggle to be treated with fairness and respect. Her mother was abandoned and had to work as a maid; her dad had a small business; her husband lost his job, they had no savings, and she had to become the main earner for their family with a young baby! I don't blame her for wanting to have security. AND I definitely don't see anything wrong with her charging what her work is worth! I think she will work to help the middle class, the poor, the dispossessed, the forgotten, and the discriminated against, because she's been there, and understands.

One of Obama's rhetorical gifts is his ability to make you feel like he's really giving you a straight, no nonsense answer, and pivoting to one of his strong topics without going into any dangerous territory.

@1, Trump doesn't try to reason his way out of his weaknesses. He tries to bludgeon his way out. He's incapable of reasoning.

@1 - Another part of why politicians are successful is because so many are lawyers -- they've been trained, more or less rigorously depending on how good their law school was, to pivot away from the negatives of their client and toward the positives, and it's become almost instinctive to react that way when addressing a skeptical or hostile audience. I worked for lawyers for years, and watching them do that was fascinating.

#7 Surprising then that trump with his (legal) defense team didn't tutor him better on keeping his trap shut.

Yeah, Clinton's not folksy, but she can give a personal speech when she wants to. But I think she has calculated that it's more likely to lose her the election than to win it, given she started ahead. And more likely to hurt herself than to help Senate Democrats. I bet I'd like the underdog version of her better personally, but I'm damn glad I don't have to see it right now.

@11:

Yeah, makes you wonder why he even bothers having "advisers" if he's never going to follow their advice.

She set out many many traps that night, and only one need be sprung to make a meal of that schmuck.

It appears that a turd is smarter than Trump.

Now that this is out of the way, how about the Clinton/Podesta e-mails that may have changed the course of the primary toward Sanders if they had been out at that time.

Give it a rest.

Sanders has, because he's more interested in Democracy than a cult of personality.

I especially enjoyed when Clinton didn't even try to refute the video of Scott Foval admitting that his group incited violence at Trump rallies but she instead shifted the topic to THOSE EVIL RUSSKIES.

It's like the left is trying to reboot the Cold War with a female lead.

@16:

Ah, right. Because Clinton is personally directing AUC and other similar organizations as part of her Grand Master Plan (tm) to steal the election from Trump - like she needs their help when Trump is doing such an exemplary job of handing it to her all on his own.

And if you're going to go there, then I guess you can't deny that Trump himself is directing Alex Jones, who likewise has been caught promoting a similar ploy at Clinton rallies.

Seriously, nobody who's paying attention gives a flying fuck about either of them; a couple of D-List side-show distractions. But hey, you go right on directing your keen, laser-sharp focus on Foval; I presume it's infinitely preferable to watching Trump's turgid campaign swirling down the bowl of American political history.

yes but clinton supporters did push the birther thing in the primaries against obama. and the clinton campaign did attack bernie for being misogynistic and too white in primaries because of his supporters. so what's good for the goose is good for the gander i guess...