I can see that but the furore is there anyway, so the difference is that in either of the options I offer at least it would be about what she honestly thought rather than a return to the "Maybot" criticism.
And in any case the reason I constructed the answers I did is that I believe that either of those is defensible -- indeed, the first one is something you've defended yourself in the past -- so that the furore over it could be easily dismissed. And who knows, maybe admiration for her would grow in some quarters if she explained that she was putting the people's wishes first?
In any case, someone would criticise her regardless. Politicians can't win. But some criticism is justified, and some isn't, and it feels to me that it's very easy to justify criticism of politicians who refuse on principle to answer most questions put to them.