Hillary Comes Out Against Giving Driver's Licenses To Illegal Immegrants

Comments (86)

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 5:04 PM:

Tooooo funny. The polls show that 77% of americans do not favor giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, so now she is not in favor. (Your welcome on the polling info dc). Wow, how decisive. What a leader. We should start calling her the decider II as opposed to bush-lite. Way, way tooooo funny.

What is going on with her campaign? It seems in disarray the last two weeks or so. Very strange.

john mccutchen wrote on November 14, 2007 5:04 PM:

Damn you're good Sgt. Kleefeld. I was on my way over here to excoriate you and Eric, your aide-de-camp, for being slow on the trigger WRT Hillary's Flip Flop

Guess she ran out of triangulation room eh?

She was for it before she was against baking cookies..but you're good, you and Private Kleefeld.

Somebody ought to do a story about you

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5426458370836820722&q=door+gunner+full+metal&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

JFK464 wrote on November 14, 2007 5:05 PM:

This is the best political move HRC could possibly make. Illegal immigration is KILLING the working class in this country. It's about time our Democratic politicians start paying attention to the blue collar folks, instead of the identity-politics, racially obsessed ultra-left Markos DailyRacist.

LJ wrote on November 14, 2007 5:07 PM:

Baffling. Why would she come out and reverse herself the day before the next debate? Calculated set up, or another blunder?

Marco Ross wrote on November 14, 2007 5:08 PM:

Perfect! She stands for absolutely nothing and keeps proving it.
The only reason any Democrat supports her is her former INEVITABILITY.

john mccutchen wrote on November 14, 2007 5:09 PM:

PS...I really do not like on-line spell checker types REALLY

BUT "ImnEgrants"?

Are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum THAT discombobulated?

NCSteve wrote on November 14, 2007 5:15 PM:

What is up with her campaign this week? It's like they have some pathological drive to come out as the ultimate winner on every little damn thing that causes them to do stuff that just keeps negative stories alive and growing.

It's almost like they're, well, kind of frantic and making bad decisions as a result. One wonders if their internal polling is showing they're losing the critical bi-sexual,left-handed dog owner demographic or something.

loki wrote on November 14, 2007 5:23 PM:

*yawn*

lestatdelc wrote on November 14, 2007 5:25 PM:

JFK464... "racially obsessed ultra-left Markos DailyRacist"

ROFLMAO, well thanks for making it clear I need never take anything you say seriously.

Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 5:28 PM:

loki wrote:

*yawn*

Don't look now, but your insincerity is showing.

JFK464 wrote on November 14, 2007 5:35 PM:

lestatdelc -- glad you found it funny. Markos doesn't think Iowa should have the first primary because it's 95% white, and anyone who questions illegal immigration is anti-brown. Keep rolling, genius. BTWAH, thanks for the heads up not to take you seriously.

rbrooks wrote on November 14, 2007 5:40 PM:

oh, pleasepleaseplease don't make me listen to any more of this woman's patronizing, canned, focus-grouped, shrill, opportunistic, insincere, dishonest, cynical crap ...

are you kidding me or what? this is what we might have to listen to for four years?

Yeah, I think Mark Penn is panicking. When neocons panic it ain't pretty.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 5:48 PM:

What is going on with her campaign? It seems in disarray the last two weeks or so. Very strange.

Good question, and the disarray has begun to take a toll.

They'd better shape up over there or the postmorten would be about how they let a sure thing slip away...

M. Goddard wrote on November 14, 2007 5:51 PM:

All anyone has to do is roll back to the Illegal Rights March in 2006 and watch her take the microphone and say:

"I look into these faces and see the future of America."

Anyone who votes for HRC just must not care what she does or does not stand for. Who could tell? It's obvious she is just lip service in a skirt (and I'm female by the way.) No way Hillary, you've shown your true colors to be no true colors too many times. Lost my vote and because of your wishy washy lies. I may be a poor American, but I'm not so stupid that I can see a con artist when she moves her lips.

mikeel wrote on November 14, 2007 5:51 PM:

Now she'll be attacked for being for it before she was against it.

I just wished she could have given this response at the Oct. 30 debate.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 5:55 PM:

dc, I am not kidding. Any idea what is going on? These slip ups are on non-issues by and large and they just make her look bad. I really don't get it. Maybe she has been so busy triangulating, that when she gets an easy question she is over thinking it or something. However, you would think that the staff could clean it up and they just make it worse. Same thing with bill's comments. Very strange.

john doe wrote on November 14, 2007 5:56 PM:

I agree with dcshungu. She is hurting, and they are in big trouble. They are going to lose Iowa, and then NH and SC are going to fall as well.

The evidence is mixed at best, so it's not at all fair to say that illegal immigration is bad for blue collar working class Americans. Reputable studies have shown little to no effect on working class wages by illegal immigration.

onceler wrote on November 14, 2007 5:57 PM:

please, people, cut the crap with the xenophobic "illegal immigrants are killing the middle class" ignorant, uninformed lou dobbs-ass bullsh#t. no such thing is happening. illegal immigrants are cleaning the middle class' kitchens.

amazing how many issues the Clinton camp won't give any answers about, but in this case, when she's been publicly flogged for making contradictory statements about this issue, to come out with a complete reversal of position a week after is simply incomprehensible. how could she think people won't notice this? or is she just saying any publicity is good? weird.

jamesincincy wrote on November 14, 2007 6:04 PM:

lestatdelc -- glad you found it funny. Markos doesn't think Iowa should have the first primary because it's 95% white

Last time I checked America is far from 95 percent white. To suggests that allowing more representative states to have a bigger role in the selection does not one a racist make.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 6:06 PM:

Baffling. Why would she come out and reverse herself the day before the next debate? Calculated set up, or another blunder?

I would like to think that it is a set up. She would like another opportunity to clarify her position or at least take another shot at the question, so this makes it inevitable that she'd be asked about it...

It is the only thing that would make sense.

bollocks! wrote on November 14, 2007 6:08 PM:

Why does no-one notice that this is in fact *exactly* the same position she took in the Philadelphia debate and has held since? She wouldn't push it as president and would instead concentrate on immigration reform, but she supports the context-specific efforts of governors like Spitzer to handle the difficult situation in the manner they find necessary. Every single statement she's made on this has been pretty clear if you bothered to stop, read/listen, and think for two seconds. The position is not as simple as it might be, but it's consistent and clear - and, in fact, virtually identical to the positions of Obama and Edwards. I'm genuinely mystified that this is an issue.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 6:16 PM:

bollocks, because it is not in fact *exactly* the same position she took in the philadelphia debate. I listened to her answer and she was all over the place. You could attempt to construe some of the gibberish any way you want, so it was exactly nothing. However, it did appear after the gibberish that she thought it was a good idea or ok or whatever word you want to use to give licenses to illegals and that was kind of, sort of, wiggling all over the place her campaign's position after the debate. Now she has flipped. Simple as that.

jim wrote on November 14, 2007 6:28 PM:

You know, if she had simply stated a position and stuck to her guns, she wouldn't be in the trouble she's in now. The problem wasn't driver's licenses for illegal immigrants (which, on the state level, completely makes sense for health and safety reasons), it was her unwillingness to stand up for her beliefs.

She should have said something to the effect of: "look, I don't support this as a federal policy, but if a State like New York, feels the need to regulate the drivers on its streets, documented or not, then the Feds should butt out, or fix the immigration problem."

Instead she waffled, and proceeded to confirm every bad narrative about her (aside from kissing Rosie O'Donnell, but that's another story).

bollocks! wrote on November 14, 2007 6:33 PM:

No, it appeared after the "gibberish" that she thought it was an acceptable idea in extreme cases where a governor felt it was necessary. Clinton, from the debate:

"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.... Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? ... He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

And Edwards, a couple days later:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "Do you believe illegal immigrants should be denied driver's licenses?"

Mr. Edwards: "Well, I think, first of all, that's for states to decide, not for the President of the United States to decide....

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "You're saying the same thing [as Clinton], right?"

Mr. Edwards: "That's true."

It's just not true that this is a "yes or no question", even for the Edwards camp (despite their hit on Clinton for not giving a "yes or no" answer). It's a regionally specific and state-level matter which requires a nuanced response, both to reflect that reality and to defend oneself from Republican demagoguing. Clinton waffled on and failed in her effort to protect herself from this - but arguing that the position was unclear just looks like you can't interpret simple nuance. Stanley Fish for once makes the point well: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

Hit Clinton on Iran, or dynastic aspirations, or something meaningful. Not for having no position where she clearly has one (or for playing the "gender card" when she simply didn't).

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 6:37 PM:

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 5:55 PM: dc, I am not kidding. Any idea what is going on?

Dunno...contrary to what some of you might think, I have no connection whatsoever to her campaign, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is such an unnecessary draw of bad press coverage that it must be a set up. The subtitle of the piece at the link that I had provided in my preceding post (the text in the narrower column is mine; just messed up the HTML tags) was "How Hillary Clinton should have answered in that debate." Read it. Prof. Stanley Fish, the author, actually made a very valid point which, if you buy it, would explain Hillary's answer: Hillary needs to clearly state what she meant to say, which was that Spitzer had to resort to this desperate measure because of the administration's failure to a pass comprehensive immigration law that would address the issue of illegal immigrants is our biggest cities. Hence her answer today: "As president, I...etc..." She has decided that it would be better to bleed now than to leave herself vulnerable during the GE to the eventual charge that she supports driver's licences for illegal aliens. She has gambled that she can kill two birds with a single stone. I am sure that she is prepared to take on the "boys" tomorrow night and this might be part of her preparation.

Now she is ready to clarify her position if (when) she is asked about it tomorrow night in the debate. Can she pull it off? We'll know in about ~24 hours from now!

DTM wrote on November 14, 2007 6:37 PM:

bollocks: "She wouldn't push it as president and would instead concentrate on immigration reform, but she supports the context-specific efforts of governors like Spitzer to handle the difficult situation in the manner they find necessary."

Clinton: "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people."

Seem the problem?

DTM wrote on November 14, 2007 6:41 PM:

By the way, I think it is perfectly reasonable to claim this is a state issue not a federal issue and leave it at that. But Clinton of course did not leave it at that.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 6:45 PM:

bollocks! wrote on November 14, 2007 6:08 PM:

Why does no-one notice that this is in fact *exactly* the same position she took in the Philadelphia debate and has held since? She wouldn't push it as president and would instead concentrate on immigration reform, but she supports the context-specific efforts of governors like Spitzer to handle the difficult situation in the manner they find necessary. Every single statement she's made on this has been pretty clear if you bothered to stop, read/listen, and think for two seconds. The position is not as simple as it might be, but it's consistent and clear - and, in fact, virtually identical to the positions of Obama and Edwards. I'm genuinely mystified that this is an issue.

That comment is exactly right, as Fish's piece had plausibly argued. Her comment today is a set up so that she'd be asked about it again. She is prepared...

Fred M. wrote on November 14, 2007 6:48 PM:

Just another sign that Hillary is nothing more than an old school political hack. She indeed does represent the status quo and business as usual in Washington.

She worries me an many levels ... not least of which is her desire to prove she has larger gonads than any of her male counterparts. (Which, based on the behavior of Democrats since taking control of Congress, would not be that difficult!)

Jeez, I hope the Dems wise up about this shrew before she gets nominated ...

bollocks! wrote on November 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

The consistency of those statements depends on her making a distinction between supporting and promoting a policy herself (e.g., trying to push through licenses for illegals from the position of the Presidency) versus supporting the efforts of governors who are solving the problem by putting licenses on the table (or by taking them off, as Spitzer just did). You're going to say that distinction is too cute by half, but notice that it's actually no different in substance from Edwards's position:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "Do you believe illegal immigrants should be denied driver's licenses?"

Mr. Edwards: "Well, I think, first of all, that's for states to decide, not for the President of the United States to decide....

Now, you can criticize Clinton for being a poor communicator here, and communicating better is part of her job as a presidential candidate. She's failed, on this issue, to command the way her statements are filtered through the consummately unintelligent press. did it without getting himself into hot water. So I don't have a problem with her position itself, but it IS a concern about her general election candidacy that she's communicating in a manner that keeps setting her up for misrepresentation. At this point though, it's not entirely her fault, because there is virtually nothing she could say that would not be construed somewhere as a flip-flop given the misrepresentation that happened initially after one messy debate answer.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

Bottom line, she should have taken a position and stuck with it, but she won't until she is repeatedly called on it and the polling shows the way to go. 77% of the public is opposed to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, so what does she do, she comes out against driver's licenses for illegals.

I am part of that 77%, but I am not anti-illegal immigrants or whatever you want to call it. Immigration needs to be dealt with on a federal level, because it is a federal responsibility and states should not be issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It makes no sense and is merely a bandaid that is opening up a host of other problems. Deal with immigration and be done with it.

Her problem was the non-response and repeated waffling. Just take a gd position and stick with it. That's what people want to see, not triple talk on non-issues. It really doesn't make sense.

Thanks for the response dc. It really is bizarre what is going on and should make for an interesting election if this keeps going at this rate.

bollocks! wrote on November 14, 2007 6:54 PM:

(I cut out part of a sentence there - meant to note that Edwards took Clinton's position without getting himself into hot water, because he communicated it in a manner that left him less susceptible to negative framing. But evidently DTM disagrees with me about the equivalence of the Clinton and Edwards positions too ...)

votenic wrote on November 14, 2007 6:55 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 6:57 PM:

Thanks for the response dc. It really is bizarre what is going on and should make for an interesting election if this keeps going at this rate.

Let's stop hyperventilating and wait until after the debate because you can bet that she would be asked about this apparent inconsistency. Her advisers, including the Big Dawg, are too good for this to have been a slip of the tongue. I suspect that it was by design, but I could be wrong.

DTM wrote on November 14, 2007 7:05 PM:

bollocks!,

Yes, I disagree. Edwards took the federalism approach, which I personally believe is fine on an issue like state-issued driver's licenses.

But if you take the federalism approach, then you can't say things like, "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people." Your whole point is supposed to be it is a state issue, not a federal issue, which means as President you should be remaining neutral.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 7:07 PM:

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

Bottom line, she should have taken a position and stuck with it, but she won't until she is repeatedly called on it and the polling shows the way to go. 77% of the public is opposed to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, so what does she do, she comes out against driver's licenses for illegals.

The idea is quite unpopular but she wanted to be a team player and back Spitzer. However, she knows that this position would come to haunt her after she wins the nomination. Spitzer has junked the idea so she has decided that it would be better to bleed now than to leave herself vulnerable during the GE to the eventual charge that she supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens. I am sure that she is prepared to take on the "boys" tomorrow night and this might be part of her preparation.

Can she pull it off? We'll know in about ~24 hours from now!

Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 7:09 PM:

Hillary Clinton is shameless. The polls show voters oppose it, Spitzer drops it, and suddenly Hillary has new clarity on her position. It would be hilarious if some misguided souls weren' serious about nominating this corporate-owned, polling-defined, weathervane for president. What absolute folly. We need a leader, not Hillary.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 14, 2007 7:13 PM:

mikeel said "I just wished she could have given this response at the Oct. 30 debate." But she didn't have national polling data to tell her what to say. Without that she would have been relying on her honesty, judgment and leadership instincts... oops

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 7:18 PM:

I wonder whether the timing of Spitzer's renouncing of the idea and Hillary's apparent faux pas on it just before the debate are purely coincidental...

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 7:21 PM:

Anyone who believes that there is a single politician out there who does not live (or sometimes die) by the polls is dumb...

Jim H wrote on November 14, 2007 7:22 PM:

Congrats, "progressives." You can play wedge politics like the big boys! Oh, those policy directions! And the outrage you express!

hwc wrote on November 14, 2007 7:23 PM:

Forget Clinton at the debate. What is Obama going to say. He now alone among the top three Dems on the record as supporting drivers licenses for illegal immigrants: a hideously unpopular position, especially in lily-white Iowa.

He's either got to flip-flop or get pummelled. I think Clinton just set a trap for him...all because he didn't leave any wiggle-room in his answer at the last debate.

Knowing Obama, he'll "take a principled stand" and get pummelled.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 7:25 PM:

dc, coincidental? I don't think so.

Also, you know I'm not hyperventilating. I don't like your candidate. I am one of those left-wing wackos that is for anybody but clinton II in 08. However, and it's a big however, if she wins the nomination and the campaign is run like this against the republican nominee, we have major, major problems.

anon wrote on November 14, 2007 7:26 PM:

The idea is quite unpopular but she wanted to be a team player and back Spitzer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, that's a good one.

Seriously, aside from who she's married to, what's the case for her? And, uh, hasn't Bush taught us our lesson about nepotism?

anns wrote on November 14, 2007 7:29 PM:

My senator is becoming more and more impossible. Is she completely unhinged.

And always tip the waitress....

Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 7:30 PM:

dchungu, Anyone who is making a living preaching politics as usual doesn't understand the mood of the nation. Many people are feed up with lying, corporate fed, partisan hacks. Don't defend repugnant behavior by saying everyone does it. Hillary is defined by the polls. We need a confident, decisive, pesuasive leader who can change opinions not just reflect them.

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 14, 2007 7:33 PM:

Good. It's an incredibly stupid idea.

Too bad she couldn't come out against it when she was set up by Russert.

DonnaG wrote on November 14, 2007 7:38 PM:

Candy Crowley interviewed Hillary days after the issue came up in the Philly debate. Three times, Crowley tried to get Hillary to give a clear answer, and the closest that Hillary got to answering was to say that whether illegals should be licensed depended upon the situation state by state. I remember wishing that Crowley had then [didn't happen, though] asked the logical follow-up question...."Ok, then, what is your position on the license issue with respect to the state of New York which you represent?"

So, a good question tomorrow night would be, "In the interim before the needed federal legislation is enacted to address the broad issue of illegal immigration, what steps should be taken by the states to address the safety issues of unlicensed, uninsured illegals being on the roads?"

anns wrote on November 14, 2007 7:38 PM:

Actually, as an upstate driver, I can say it was an incredibly good idea. It is a nightmare to be hit by an unlicensed and uninsured driver. Spitzer was sticking by his guns on this until my junior senator's waffling blew him out of the water.

DTM wrote on November 14, 2007 7:46 PM:

As many politicians have demonstrated, you do not in fact have to take the most popular side of every single issue in order to get elected.

With this issue in particular, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. So, if you happen to support the idea, you can say something like, "No one likes the idea of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but in some states that may be the only way to deal with the problems caused by a failing federal immigration policy." People won't necessarily agree, but it is unlikely saying something like that will mean you can't get elected.

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 14, 2007 7:52 PM:

"Actually, as an upstate driver, I can say it was an incredibly good idea. It is a nightmare to be hit by an unlicensed and uninsured driver. Spitzer was sticking by his guns on this until my junior senator's waffling blew him out of the water."

I don't believe that this proposal would have caused illegal aliens to maintain insurance on their vehicles.

A more global (i.e., federal) solution needs to be reached in immigration. On that point, Hillary was correct.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 7:54 PM:

Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 7:30 PM:

dchungu, Anyone who is making a living preaching politics as usual doesn't understand the mood of the nation. Many people are feed up with lying, corporate fed, partisan hacks. Don't defend repugnant behavior by saying everyone does it. Hillary is defined by the polls. We need a confident, decisive, pesuasive leader who can change opinions not just reflect them.

A long-winded rant that says absolutely nothing. Show me a politician who does not have a team of pollsters to gauge the public mood and I would show you a truly "New Kind of Politician." Their claims to the contrary notwithstanding, pols live by the polls...to think otherwise is just dumb.

anns wrote on November 14, 2007 8:03 PM:

In NY we have to show proof of insurance when we register our vehicles. There also are complications when businesses (e.g, a landscaper, delivery service, etc.) have unlicensed, uninsured drivers. Perhaps, because I live in a rural area, this is a problem that doesn't exist in NJ. I don't know New Jersey motor vehicle law. I am assuming that you can register a vehice without proof of a license and insurance and tha texplains you reponse. I didn't relize that the law was different in NJand NY.

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 8:03 PM:

However, and it's a big however, if she wins the nomination and the campaign is run like this against the republican nominee, we have major, major problems.

How quickly we forget just how everyone was gushing about the stellar quality of her campaign! This is just a bump on the road the White house, Michael. It is not a skid or even a fall! She is still the candidate to beat, unless someone manages to drive a stake through her heart tomorrow night. My feeling is that we're going to see a very skilled debater tomorrow night. They knocked her off her stride once, I do not expect that to happen again. If anything, considering their relative success (largely through the noise machine) the boys would attempt to do a Drexel U redux and come out looking vicious or overreaching against her poise...

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 14, 2007 8:10 PM:

An insurance policy can be canceled at any time after it is issued.

john mccutchen wrote on November 14, 2007 8:16 PM:

unless someone manages to drive a stake through her heart tomorrow night

Interesting choice of metaphor!
Mo Dowd observed two weeks ago(?) that Girlfriend had a rough week.

That week's looking more like a a rough month. Poor dear ran out of room to triangulate

dcshungu wrote on November 14, 2007 8:28 PM:

ohn mccutchen wrote on November 14, 2007 8:16 PM:

Interesting choice of metaphor!

LOL. I thought some wingnut might get a kick out of that one... :-)

Ni Daye wrote on November 14, 2007 8:37 PM:

If giving illegals driver's license is such a bad idea, why a state like Utah is already giving it. This may be too big an issue for you Hillary haters but this is a complicated issue that does not have an easy answer!

Ni Daye wrote on November 14, 2007 8:52 PM:

I work around Rockfeller center in New York. I pay 2.50 for a shoe shine, which to me shows why illegals are needed here.

NCSteve wrote on November 14, 2007 9:00 PM:

Okay, I've had my fun with this, but, seriously, her campaign obviously decided it had to flip on this because Penn's polls showed blond haired, ambidexterious female communications workers with sprained ankles were upset about it and they decided it would be better to swallow the jagged little pill now than on live TV at the debate.

The problem is that everyone in the MSM, people in her campaign and a lot of people here, seem to think the problem with her answer this question was about immigration. It wasn't. The issue was her constant weather-vaning on the issues. That being the case, she isn't doing herself any favors with this move no matter what microtrend Penn says will be catered too, 'cause the macrotrend is going to be negative. On the substantive question, she could have just stuck with "I'm standing behind Spitzer, whatever he does in dealing with this difficult issue that the federal government has dumped on the states" and made common cause with Obama and Edwards against the Sponge Bobs. Now, she's swung around on the issue once again. Now Obama and Edwards get to hit her again for apparently changing her mind yet again. I'm sure she'll have a well-honed, focus group tested answer to spit back at them. We'll see if its enough.

BevD wrote on November 14, 2007 9:33 PM:

She said the same exact thing at the debate. I'm surprised that Greg Sargent would pull this kind of crap.

Ni Daye wrote on November 14, 2007 9:49 PM:

BevD-

this site, like all ultraliberal sites, is against the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. they will do anything to destroy her. With friends like these, she does not need any enemy.

Patrickb1 wrote on November 14, 2007 10:33 PM:

So many people are so quick to criticize Hillary that they can't even step back and look at the whole picture.

A DEMOCRATIC Governer launches a plan. The DEMOCRATIC Senator from that state does NOT immediately take sides. She neither supports it nor opposes it. First, it's a state issue, not a federal issue. Secondly, as a representative of THAT state, the Senator should wait to see what the state constituents want before making a decision to condemn the plan that she has no role in. How easy it is to forget that the senator IS THERE TO REPRESENT HER CONSTITUENTS.

That's the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.

Not on this planet. If Hillary doesn't take a position, immediately, she is equivocating. She is "calculating". She is "poll-driven."

Sorry folks, that's not the way that politics works. New ideas deserve some time to be debated. Not every politician MUST take a position IMMEDIATELY on every issue. They are there to represent their constituents, and many issues need input from constituents.

This is nowhere more true than the Presidency. It is the one political position that represents the entire country. The nature of the position DEMANDS that the incumbent be aware of public sentiment.

Wake up folks. Hillary is crafting a national campaign. She will represent the entire country, red state and blue state. To be ultimately successful, as her husband was, she must lead from the center.

Get used to it.

Pasquale Mojado wrote on November 14, 2007 11:16 PM:

Many people are wondering if the Clintons threatened Spitzer and strong-armed him to drop the drivers license attempt because it was serving as an embarrassment to Hillary, who most likely favors the drivers licenses so that illegal aliens (most of whom are illegal Mexicans) could vote. So the Clintons may think this now lets Hillary off the hook. But we know better. Americans will keep the illegal alien crisis front and center all through the election cycle since it is the most important issue affecting our country.

Jim J wrote on November 14, 2007 11:26 PM:

I guess this post must have gotten a link from Drudge. What is it about the Clintons that brings out the crazies who hide behind racist screennames?

nezua wrote on November 14, 2007 11:46 PM:

I just wish fools would stop using spanish language nicknames to further their ugly agendas. It's embarrassing.

Citizen Jim Bob Billy Joe wrote on November 15, 2007 12:13 AM:

Someone wrote:
"I just wish fools would stop using spanish language nicknames to further their ugly agendas. It's embarrassing."

I agree. English should be the officlal language of the USA, and that we shouldn't have to mess with Spanish language. Especially for such ugly issues as border security, illegal immigration, loss of sovereignty and culture, terrorism, crime, etc.

Why don’t Progressives just admit that they don’t want to hear white people?

FreakyBeaky wrote on November 15, 2007 12:20 AM:

It's not going to be a real popular opinion around here, but I think Hillary did the right thing. When little timmy russert asked her the driver's license question, she had three options: (1) endorse Spitzer's plan, which is political poison; (2) come out against driver's licenses for illegal aliens, i.e., throw her state's embattled Democratic governor under the bus; or (3) stall.

Her best choice was (3). (2) was a problem Dodd didn't have, being from Connecticut. Most everyone else very, very stupidly IMO, chose (1). Now that Spitzer has dropped the drivers license plan she can come out against drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which is the public's overwhelming consensus opinion, without screwing Spitzer. It was a bad hand, but she played it well.

RaymondA wrote on November 15, 2007 2:41 AM:

For all of you who are claiming Hillary did not change positions, I'd commend this link to the NYT. The NYT, the day after the debate, reported, based on a statement from her campaign, that Hillary in fact supported states' giving licenses to undocumented aliens.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/a-day-lat er-clinton-embraces-spitzers-license-effort/index.html? hp

Keep parsing away; it's not convincing anyone.

DTM wrote on November 15, 2007 3:35 AM:

First, RaymondA is, of course, correct about what happened. Naturally, anything could be "consistent" with her debate "answer", since her debate "answer" took all possible positions. Rather, the point is that her current position is not consistent with her original post-debate position.

Second, NCSteve is, of course, correct about the politics. It is not in fact "political poison" to sometimes take the less popular side of an issue (Reagan being an excellent example of someone who was on the less popular side of most issues and still very popular himself).

But what IS "political poison" is to create the impression that you are a "flip-flopper" who is taking positions based on what you believe would be most popular. The precise problem with that impression is that people want their leaders to be principled, honest, and decisive, and you don't even get credit for eventually having the "right" answer since you have trashed your own credibility on the issue.

All this should be PAINFULLY obvious to Democrats after Kerry. And I really hope that the Democrats decide this time to go with someone like a Reagan or a Bill Clinton in 1992, rather than another Kerry.

RickD wrote on November 15, 2007 6:11 AM:

I would be hard-pressed to respect a candidate who stuck with a position that was opposed by 77% of the public. Isn't that what we criticize Bush for?

RickD wrote on November 15, 2007 6:14 AM:

DTM: nobody really cares whether Republicans attack Democratic candidate X as a "flip flopper". The Republicans are going to do that no matter what happens. Unless you think a politician should make up their mind about an issue and stick with that position throughout eternity, no matter what the public thinks...

Bush has always been as much of a "flip flopper" as Kerry or Gore ever was. Don't be suckered into playing the game the way the Republicans want you to play it. They want Democrats to wring their hands about impossible standards that the Republicans themselves never bother to try to meet.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W. Bush

Anonymous wrote on November 15, 2007 6:15 AM:

BevD said "She said the same exact thing at the debate. I'm surprised that Greg Sargent would pull this kind of crap."

She certainly never said she was against divers liscenses for illegal immmigratns. She did say she was for and against it, which was the whole point when the others on statge challenged her.

BevD gives us a great examole of how Hillary's strategy plays with voters who don't pay attention. You can quote something that Hillary has said that seems to support your own position, but then there are so many qualifications and ocntradictions that make the statement meaningless.

Hillary is on every side of every issue. Just read her Sentate speech before the Iraq vote, she covers herself on every opinion, from every direction and on every possible outcome. In that instance, however, she VOTED on record to give Bush the authority to invace Iraq, enabling the worst foreign policy disaster in history. She showed horrible judgment in the vote, the most consequential vote she has ever made, and then she did it again on the recent Iran vote.

We don't know what Hillary thinks or would do on any issue. We know what her Mark Penn and her handlers have told her to say. We do know that she is secretive, deceptive and fundamentally dishonest. Haven't we had enough of a PR invented, nepotistic, unqualified, dishonest president? If you watch Hillary Clinton you KNOW, her presidency would be MORE OF THE SAME>

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 15, 2007 6:20 AM:

Thanks Bollock! I understand, we're back to the brilliant Clintonian position that it depends on what "is is."

You can always show consistency in Hillary's positions if your ignore the contradictory, poll serving, panderings.

And the other point that is important to make, why exactly should we believe anything Hillary says, even if she should be consistent for once. SHE IS DISHONEST!

joshblows wrote on November 15, 2007 6:27 AM:

This reminds me of when Clinton FINALLY supported the Welfare Reform Bill after vetoing it twice once the "tealeaves" were clear. REAL LEADERS THOSE CLINTONS! Although I must admit that at least they have enough pragmatism to actually do the RIGHT THING from time to time once they're dragged kicking and screaming enough..... 8-)

Jan wrote on November 15, 2007 6:28 AM:

I dare anyone to show me where Clinton ever said she would give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

She has said consistently that she supports the governors' efforts to address state safety issues in the face of Bush failing to pass federal comprehensive immigration reform.
"The governer's effort" in the case of Spitzer was issuing driver's licenses in NY.

Show me even one time when Clinton said she would give out driver's licenses, as opposed to saying she supports the governors efforts to address safety issues in their states.

Pasquale wrote on November 15, 2007 6:30 AM:

Kerry didn't lose because he was a flip-flopper (although he didn't receive any extra votes for that either). He lost because Americans saw through him (he had nothing to offer), worried about his anti-American ativities after returning from Vietnam, and they didn't want the enigmatic Tarayza to be the first African-American First Lady.

Desider wrote on November 15, 2007 6:36 AM:

FreakyBeaky and Patrickbl have it mostly right.

The best thing Hillary did was turn it on the White House - "in the absence of federal action to deal with this situation, the [Democratic] governor has to come up with some solution" or however she put it.

Drivers' licenses are a pretty lightweight wall against terrorism, and yes, in government you have to make alliances without pissing all over everyone else's initiatives - thus the "don't take a hard stand unless you really need to" rule.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 15, 2007 7:00 AM:

Jan, you are spinning. Hillary said drivers licenses for illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense" She said it to an newspaper editorial board in New Hampshire and confirmed it in the NBC debate when asked by Tim Russert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY

Of course she didn't say she would issue those licenses, STATES issue drivers licenses, thus, the deferral to governors. If she did not support drivers licenses for illegal immigrants she should have said in New Hampshire and in the debate "No, I do not support that." And then launched into the better solutions of immigration reform.

Hillary wants it both ways on every issue. She only took a firm position on the license issue when she saw poll numbers. She's dishonest. And its this type of posturing that makes me distruct her MORE and More.

Anonymous wrote on November 15, 2007 7:12 AM:

dchungu said "How quickly we forget just how everyone was gushing about the stellar quality of her campaign!"

The only people who were gushing about th equality of her campaign are those with vested interests in politics as usual and the corporate-profiteering-status-quo. Most people concerned about the nation and its future, cringed at the way Billary, Inc. was raising record levels of campaign dollars by promising influence to corporate special interests. Many people cringe at the Rove-Bush, Penn-Clinton style of deep division politics that makes it impossible for there to be a clear majority on any issue, thus protecting the status quo. And many many decent Americans see Hillary and her campaign as poll-defined, dishonest, secretive, and pandering.

Paid political hacks my have gushed about "the stellar quality of her campaign," but most voters do not admire admire calcualtion, dishonesty, pandering, influence pedaling, secrecy, staged events/questions/answers portrayed as sponstaneous, hiding behind Big Bill when the heat gets too much for poor little Hillary. Seeing the Billary machine exposed for what it is -- a propoganda factory fueled with corporate dollars -- is very satisfying. The road to Hillary's inevitable coronation has suddengly become VERY VERY steep.

Jan wrote on November 15, 2007 8:41 AM:

re: "The road to Hillary's inevitable coronation has suddengly become VERY VERY steep."

May I ask...
How so?

I've been hearing that exact same sentiment from Clinton Haters since she announced she was running for the US Senate back in 2000.
She won.
Twice.

"...suddenly become VERY VERY steep..."
Proof?

(Or just some ignorant idiotic blah-blah posting?)

coonsey wrote on November 15, 2007 8:52 AM:

Wish she would make up her mind. I can see the GOP jumping on this now...smart move Hillary - NOT

Coonsey's View
Political Blog and forum
http://www.freeweb.com/coonsey/

Keith wrote on November 15, 2007 11:02 AM:

I think Phil Singer forgot a word or two in his retort:

Nevermind what we've said in the past in New Hampshire and immediately after the debate,Sen. Clinton would not give driver's licenses to undocumented peopleat least not at this exact moment, unless polling suggest that it is supported by 60% of the population, and her previous support of these measures, Senator Obama would

Glad they cleared that up for us.

Tom in MA wrote on November 15, 2007 11:37 AM:

Do we not grasp the role of Russert in this whole situation? The GOP sets his agenda -- his role is to trap Dems into hard positions on unpopular issues. If Hilary says "yes" to drivers licenses, then Russert has delivered a 30 second spot to the GOP fall campaign. If Hilary says "no" to drivers licenses, then the issue goes away, since it isn't an issue to Russert unless it has the power to hurt Dems. If she says neither "yes" nor "no", then he goes to the "evasive" charge.
The "evasive" charge is how the right forces the Dems to play wedge politics.

We should be pleased when our candidates evade right wing trick questions designed to further their wedge politics.

There is a place where the desire from the left for candidate clarity plays into the wedge politics of the right -- demanding yes or no answers on questions that actually hurt our own chances.

Hilary appeal to me lies precisely in her ability to keep the general election in mind in this primary period.

savvy wrote on November 15, 2007 2:48 PM:

Should have KNOWN.

Clinton campaign pressured Spitzer to drop this issue.
Watch it here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/14/report-clinton-aides-told-spitzer-dump-licenses-illegals

patrickb1 wrote on November 17, 2007 10:57 PM:

This thread has brought out the rightwingnuttia to TPM. I would think that the cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode. But rightwingnuttia seem fully exempt from cognitive dissonance. They seem to defy normal cognitive processes by holding two completely, (perhaps a thousand completely) contradictory thoughts in their pointy heads and have no problem at all.

The anti-Clinton vitriol here is comical. Below I show seven of just the first dozen posters here. It’s all Hillary bashing all the time.

Do you people read this forum? Do you see, day to day, how TPM has carefully documented, step-by-step, how the Repugs have trashed our constitution, destroyed the DoJ, slimed a valuable counter proliferation national asset, fought tooth and nail against constitutional congressional oversight, ignored congressional subpeonas, conducted illegal warrantless wiretaps, lied their way into a trillion dollar war, trashed Iraq, trashed the military, trashed agency after agency with crony incompetents. But MOST IMPORTANT is how TPM has made abundantly clear how this administration has lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, and then lied a whole lot more. Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, and his minions, to name just a few.

And the rightwingnuttia comes HERE to criticize Hillary, because she’s untrustworthy, or that she flip flops or won‘t give a straight answer. We have Rudy Guiliani, lying his a** off on an almost daily basis. We have Rudy, Mitt and Fred flipflopping all over the place. But Hillary’s a librel. She’s a big spender. Wake up children, we have an administration that not only has run up a bigger deficit than any President in history, he’s going on a spending binge of government growth that is bigger than any of his recent predecessors.

Now listen up y’all, because all your yellin’ ain’t gonna turn the tide of history. 2006 was a warmup for what’s ahead in 2008. Hillary is almost certainly going to be not only the next president of our good Ole US of A, but, (now don‘t choke on that chicken bone yer chewing on), our next commander in chief. Wow, the current administration has trashed just about everything, but Hillary, well she didn‘t make an immediate snap decision on the merits of drivers licenses to illegal aliens. So you loyal rightwingnuttia come out of the woodwork to TPM to declare Hillary’s campaign in disarray, to tell us she’s untrustworthy, she’s a flipflopper. You have suspended the laws of Psychology. Cognitive dissonance doesn‘t affect the right wing brain.

For the regular readers of this forum, you can’t imagine just how incredibly dumb all these anti-Hillary comments are. Keep them up, if you think they will make one iota of a difference in this election. Too bad you weren’t all on hand in New Orleans just before Katrina. You all could have prevented the catastrophe if you had all just lined up on the shore and yelled at that wave. That’s about as much effect as you’ll have in this coming landslide.

Note: I am not a Hillary supporter. I am a Democrat. Right now I support Dodd due to his impassioned efforts to block the FISA amnesty. And I really like Barack. He WILL make a great president, it’s just he may not get his chance this go round. Hillary has an unparalleled organization, and despite the media’s best efforts at undermining her, she will likely win the nomination in a landslide.

And when she whips Guiliani’s butt in the general election, you rightwing nuts can all enjoy calling her PRESIDENT.

So here's just a sampling, 7 of the first dozen posts:

Michael - “Wow, how decisive. What a leader. We should start calling her the decider II as opposed to bush-lite. Way, way tooooo funny.”

john mccutchen “She was for it before she was against baking cookies.”

Marco Ross “Perfect! She stands for absolutely nothing and keeps proving it.
The only reason any Democrat supports her is her former INEVITABILITY.”

NCSteve “One wonders if their internal polling is showing they're losing the critical bi-sexual,left-handed dog owner demographic or something.”

Rbrooks “oh, pleasepleaseplease don't make me listen to any more of this woman's patronizing, canned, focus-grouped, shrill, opportunistic, insincere, dishonest, cynical crap ... are you kidding me or what? this is what we might have to listen to for four years?”

Dcshungu “the disarray has begun to take a toll.”

M. Goddard “Anyone who votes for HRC just must not care what she does or does not stand for. Who could tell? It's obvious she is just lip service in a skirt (and I'm female by the way.) No way Hillary, you've shown your true colors to be no true colors too many times. Lost my vote and because of your wishy washy lies. I may be a poor American, but I'm not so stupid that I can see a con artist when she moves her lips.”

Anns - “My senator is becoming more and more impossible. Is she completely unhinged.”

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)