Anybody who wants to see what a political train wreck looks like probably need look no further than the video making the rounds of U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster answering – or not answering, more accurately – a constituent’s question about her position on the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The video has all the makings of an ambush, which is exactly what it was.

According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the video was made by Greg Salts, a former state representative from Manchester who recorded Kuster last month at an event in that city where she was scheduled to talk about her trip to Israel and the Middle East.

The video starts with Kuster reading a question from the audience at which she is asked about her position on a resolution in the U.S. House to establish a select committee to investigate the Benghazi massacre.

When she finishes the question, Kuster offers no answer, but mutters a few sentences about how it is a Senate matter, and says there is no such matter before the House, (The question refers to House Resolution 36, which would establish a select committee to investigate the attack.)

A questioner then asks Kuster – not impolitely – if she could address Benghazi.

“What are you going to do about Benghazi?” another questioner asks, a little more forcefully.

It was at that point that Kuster assumed the look of a deer staring into the headlights of an oncoming tractor-trailer.

That, as it turned out, was the good news, because things only got worse when she opened her mouth.

“I’m certainly not here to talk about it.” she said of the Benghazi attack. “I’m here to talk about the Middle East.”

Now, we understand that “Benghazi” has assumed the same connotations among Democrats that the term “birther” carried during President Barack Obama’s first term in office. It has, in many Democratic circles, come to symbolize Republicans grasping at straws when they have nothing more politically substantive to cling to. For that reason, Democrats like Kuster are not exactly eager to engage those who see Benghazi as a major foreign policy failure symbolizing the incompetence of the Obama administration.

Except that questions about Benghazi are not the same as those about whether the president was born in the United States. They are far more legitimate because, for starters, four Americans died in the Benghazi attack, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

We can also argue about whether Libya is, in fact, in the Middle East as that region is commonly defined. Kuster seems to suggest it is not, although it is in North Africa and shares a long border with Egypt, which nobody disputes is in the Middle East.

That, however, is very much beside the point.

More relevant is Kuster’s handling of the incident. As much as she undoubtedly would have preferred not to answer the Benghazi question – and we acknowledge it was probably a setup – the question deserved more respect than Kuster gave it. She was dismissive and contemptuous and turned to the event’s moderator to bail her out. Kuster came off looking bad. Very bad, in fact. Frankly, we expect better from our representatives, regardless of party.

It also is a cautionary tale for politicians. Any sitting (or prospective) member of Congress who doesn’t have a stock, two-minute response on hand to answer even unpleasant questions is leaving themselves vulnerable to ambushes like the one Kuster experienced.

In this case, it was her own fault.

Newsletter