The continued hysteria of defensiveness from the Clinton camp and it defenders over Hillary’s trouble at the last debate is, to me, one of the most fascinating developments in the race. The thin-skinnedness of it all is amazing. Linda Hirschman’s (my nominee for the single most overrated liberal intellectual of 2007 and perhaps the decade) bizarre suggestion that standing up to Tim Russert is akin to taking a stand against the Nazis is just one small example. Now Bill Clinton is comparing the entirely conventional question from Russert to the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry. “I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” Clinton said referring to the 2004 Switfy episode (and not the intern bullpen at his office, which just happens to go by the name “cutsey land” as well). From the AP:

“It’s fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer’s plan. But not in 30 seconds — yes, no, raise your hand,” he said. The former president told the union members not to let the Republican attacks distract them from the important issues of health care and education reform. He compared the driver’s license dustup to television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry’s patriotism, and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was soft on terrorism.

Where to start. First of all, huh? Second, it needs to be pointed out that Clinton considers the Swift boat thing entirely and completely illegitimate, dishonorable and deceitful. So by extension he’s saying that Tim Russert was likewise in the wrong for asking the junior Senator from New York whether she agreed with the Governor of New York’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

Did I say “huh?” already?

Third, if Bill Clinton wants to denounce soundbite questions at these debates, he has a strong goody-goody argument to make there. But why focus on this entirely legitimate yes or no question? Why not denounce the “lightning rounds” that demand Republican candidates settle their views on the mysteries of God and his creation of the universe? Why not ridicule yes or no questions about Iraq or Iran and other immensely complex problems? Why focus on an entirely legitimate and, by any objective standard innocuous, question about drivers licenses?

Of course, we know the answer. He’s focusing on this because this is the question she flubbed. But the amazing defensiveness — wo, wo, wo, politics of pile on and all that — on display is, I think, a sign of a deep vulnerability. The Clinton camp, writ large, have a glass jaw. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. If Hillary has a few more “gaffes” like this, a lot of people could be very turned off, very quickly.