I don’t think it’s a stellar performance either. The editing is absolutely terrible. I wonder who’s kid they let edit the interview. She’s on the defensive big time. She seems nervous and Charlie keeps pushing her. He is going topic to topic and it seems like he’s playing a little gotcha.
My impression was that she was nervous or tense, but not defensive. I didn't see the whole piece, just the end where he was asking about missions into e.g., Pakistan w/o Pak's approval.
Even being tense, she didn't "um" or "ah." She gave a decent answer. Gibson was trying to get a "yes or no" inappropriately - because mission decisions are always contextual.
Charlie tried to get her on the Bush Doctrine, then had to admit that as he understood it, blah, blah, blah. How many people could explain Bush’’s Doctrine?
What would Clinton’s doctrine be? Passivity?
Would she defend America? You bet. And aggressively. Gibson, being the liberal wuss he is, looks down over his glasses like a aged professor lecturing a freshman.