Have the tables turned on the term "low-energy"?

[heatcharger]

So this started yesterday when Hillary's manager Robby Mook calling Trump's teleprompter driven speech "muted, low-energy":
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-trump-low-energy-224065

Then today Hillary's social media team tweeted this gem at Trump a few hours ago:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/740973710593654784

"Delete your account." Simple. Effective.

Trump follows up two hours later with this uninspired tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741007091947556864

I'm seeing a lot of people call this retort lame and "low-energy" for taking so long to respond.

So is Hillary's campaign going to be effective at portraying Trump as a sad man and labeling him as "low-energy"?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

She got SCHLONGED by Trump's response, so no.

[Green Line]

Hillary shouldn't get into a twitter war with Trump, she's not witty enough.

[Xing]

Hillary shouldn't get into a twitter war with Trump, she's not witty enough too intelligent.

[Higgs]

Hillary shouldn't get into a twitter war with Trump, she's not her interns aren't witty enough.

[IceSpear]

He opened himself up to it with his EXTREMELY low energy speech on Tuesday.

[Virginiá]

Is it possible Clinton's campaign is just trying to bait Trump into ditching the prepared speeches and going on his usually rants and tirades again? The benefits of having an opponent with such thin skin is that it can be so much easier to manipulate them into creating more problems / controversy for themselves.

[Curbstomp]

When was the last (first?) time Hillary ditched prepared speeches? 

[Ljube]

Hillary shouldn't get into a twitter war with Trump, she's not witty enough.