The pundits in Washington all agree that Hillary Clinton had the line of the night in last week’s AFL-CIO candidate forum in Chicago with “I’m your girl!” – a figurative touchdown on Chicago’s Soldier Field. At the same time she may have also committed a crucial turnover on a later drive to secure her front-runner status.

Specifically, as she sought to paint Barack Obama and the rest of the field as ill equipped to deal with serious presidential issues, Mrs. Clinton told the crowd that candidates and presidents should not always say what they are really thinking. To the D.C. establishment of politicians, pundits, consultants and party insiders this is as much of a verity as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Unfortunately, after 6+ years of “dumbya,” “Dick” Cheney, Karl Rove, warrantless wiretapping and secret policy groups the public is neither ready nor willing to accept more secrets and double talk from Washington. Indeed, while Hillary continues to enjoy a wide lead in the national polls, she does not enjoy wide leads in individual primary states. Moreover, she and her coterie of consultants must deal with the fact that the public finds untrustworthiness to be one of her greatest flaws.

Now many have suggested that part of this problem is intertwined with her greatest asset - experience. That is, because she is so entrenched in the DC establishment and adroit at playing the “Roman” game she has become a product of the consultant class and lost touch with her true personality. As such, she does not and will not allow herself to reach out beyond the solid ground game she has executed so well - up until the other night.

Ironically, in an attempt to “make a first down” so that she could continue to run out the clock on the primaries and secure the nomination – she “passed” the ball (i.e., strayed from her usual measured and careful statements) and committed a turnover (“mistake”). Indeed, what makes this particular mistake so damaging is the fact that it reinforces a preconceived negative impression that the public already has of her.

In short, by trying to tell the world that she is experienced enough not to tell the world what she is always thinking – she demonstrated the very flaw she sought to exploit in the other candidates. That is, she told the audience what she was thinking – and what she was thinking was, she will not necessarily say what is really on her mind. Ironically, by doing so, she gave the public another piece of evidence in its case against her as untrustworthy.

Now the consultants and pundits will try to spin this as a minor error that all candidates are apt and expected to make in the course of a long and overly scrutinized campaign. Not so fast. This is not some careless slip of the tongue that will be forgotten by the public or her opponents.

Indeed, it falls into that dangerous category of potential mortal error – akin to that of John Kerry in ’04 saying “I voted for it before I voted against it” (i.e., reinforcing the negative preconception that he was a flip flopper); or Gary Hart being caught with Donna Rice on the “Monkey Business” in ’88 (i.e., a womanizer), or Freddy Ferrer in 2005 telling an audience of New York City Police Sergeants that the prosecution of police in the Amadou Diallo shooting was over prosecution, after having supported murder charges at the time of the shooting (again, reinforcing the notion that he was a flip flopper) – the list goes on.

Of course, like all turnovers (mistakes) it does not always lead to a score and/or defeat; however, it does give the opposition good field position from which to exploit the error. Indeed errors of this kind have more often than not proved to be very damaging if not mortal. Will that occur here – only time will tell.

Will this line become the tag phrase for Democratic attack ads during the rest of the primary season? Is the RNC already in the studio cooking up another of their infamous ad campaigns? Will this line come back during debates? That is, will a Democrat or possible Republican opponent open up their response to a Clinton statement with – “Is that what she’s really thinking? Or, is this one of those important issues/times where she believes telling you what she really thinks isn’t appropriate?”

Only time, her opponents and the voting public hold the answer to these questions.