On the morning of Hillary Clinton's big debate night, Politico slams her about E-mails --- Makes it sound like Watergate --- AND --- Says she's been a bad candidate because of it

The Politico feature says it's about the "...  seven-month war within [Hillary's] campaign over the email scandal that just wouldn’t go away..."  --- but it is as much about the  drip, drip, drip  E-mail scandal and Hillary's seven month drop, drop, drop in polling 

And, this time,  Politico also chose to use a phrase that is 100%  WATERGATE  ---  calling the  E-mails scandal  >>> "A ‘Cancer’ on the Clinton Candidacy"<<<

The article in "Politico" by Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni sarted with this:   "Halfway through her long and humbling summer, Hillary Clinton ran into an old friend who wanted to know how she was bearing up under the pressure of near-daily revelations about the use of her private email server during her time in the State Department. Clinton was unmistakably unhappy....   'I am having two problems,' she bluntly told the supporter at a social event. 'On the one hand, I feel like I’m rolling out a lot of substantive programs on issues that people care about. We’re getting one day’s news coverage. But there’s nothing larger knitting it together. We’re not breaking through. … And my team needs to get their act together on the email response.'...”   (See "A ‘Cancer’ on the Clinton Candidacy..."  by Glenn Thrush & Annie Karni,  10/13/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-2016-emails-213241?o=0]).

The authors go on to observe,  "....   Clinton’s frustration with her own campaign staff was striking. So was her refusal for much of the year to characterize the escalating email controversy as anything other than a failure of communications, messaging or the vast right-wing-and-media conspiracy. Both complaints were consistent with what other campaign advisers told us in dozens of interviews for this story—except some of them laid equal blame on the candidate herself...."

THE HEADLINE DOES THE REAL DAMAGE ON THE DAY OF HILLARY'S FIRST DEBATE

Although the Thrush-Karni piece is an exhaustive and workmanlike dismantling of the failed Clinton campaign efforts to put the E-mails problems behind them and their candidate, the bomb of the piece is that part of it's headline which is so reminiscent  of the iconic  phrase about Richard Nixon's Watergate problem being  "... a cancer on the presidency...".   The suggestion is clear  ---  if E-mails are a "Cancer on the Clinton Candidacy" imagine what the "Cancer" on the Hillary Clinton presidency is going to look like.   

BRRRRRRRR !!!   SCARY STUFF KIDS.....

POLITICO'S ARTICLE DEMONSTRATES THAT HILLARY'S HANDLING OF THE E-MAIL SCANDAL SHOWS-OFF HER BAD JUDGMENT AS MUCH AS HER DECISION TO USE HER PRIVATE E-MAIL SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE  ---   IT ALSO SHOWS THAT, SO FAR, SHE'S BEEN A VERY BAD CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2015-2016  CYCLE  ---   WORSE THAN IN 2008  

According to Thrush and Karni  ---  "....   The campaign was becoming just the kind of defensive race none of them, least of all the candidate, expected to be running, and for months and months the emails distracted and diverted a Clinton team that seemed powerless to move beyond the unfolding scandal. While her team bought Clinton’s basic argument that she had done nothing illegal or even fundamentally wrong, it rekindled longstanding concerns about her judgment. It was hard to avoid the view that she had walked right into a trap at a time when the GOP seemed to be imploding in a Trump-shaped mushroom cloud....    'It sounds crazy, but I think she simply wasn’t equipped to deal with all this,' says one longtime ally who has been in regular contact with Clinton. 'She’s never been a great candidate, OK? She needed time and campaigns don’t give you time.…   She was blindsided, and I think only now, after all this crap, is she finally in the right headspace.'...   Nearly every one of 50 advisers, donors, Democratic operatives and friends we interviewed for this story thought Clinton was a mediocre candidate who would make a good president, if given the chance. They painted a portrait of a politician who talked about learning from past mistakes while methodically repeating them—a far cry from the formidable shatterer of glass ceilings who had put such a scare into Obama late in the 2008 primaries...."