ArcaMax

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Wednesday night's televised town hall with Hillary Clinton featured the candidate at her best -- and her worst. Clinton and her campaign ought to study the lessons of both.

The candidate at her worst was obvious, and all the more painful for its predictability. When Clinton is pressed on big-dollar donations and hefty speaking fees from Wall Street, she reverts to a reflexive defensiveness that hurts her cause. This was on display at the Democratic debate in Des Moines in November, when she invoked the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to explain her flood of Wall Street money.

"I represented New York," Clinton said. "And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."

If you thought that Clinton would have learned from that blundering answer, it wasn't on display Wednesday night when CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Clinton about the $675,000 that Goldman Sachs paid her for three speeches.

Cooper: "You were paid $675,000 for three speeches. Was that a mistake? I mean, was that a bad error in judgment?

Clinton: "Look. I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions."

Cooper: "But did you have to be paid $675,000?"

Clinton: "Well, I don't know. That's what they offered, so ...; you know every secretary of state that I know has done that."

Cooper: "But ... they're not running for an office."

Clinton: "To be honest, I wasn't committed to running. I didn't know whether I would or not."

...continued

Copyright 2016 Washington Post Writers Group