It’s now late in 2007. . .

. . and leading Democrats are just now starting to criticize Hillary Clinton’s soulless triangulation?

(from Politico)

In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

She may have slipped up a little in last night’s debate, but how did her overall performance differ from her usual public persona over the last decade?

Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.

How was her appearance last night any different that her usual public demeanor?  For years, she has been described by an admiring press as a passionate citizen, Senator, advocate, representative, wife, woman, layperson, or activist, for a countless number of causes. And now she’s passionless?   Is it only now her Democratic opponents realize–as their counterparts on the right have known for years–that voters actually might have a strong distaste for the cynical maneuvering and poll-driven rhetoric of Clintonian politics?