If you’re like me, you didn’t bother watching last night’s Democratic debate because you probably had better things to do - like watch the leaves fall or something. Seriously, last night’s debate proved to be the one to watch, as Hillary Clinton made her first official “noticeable” mistake: her facade started to crumble, the day before Halloween no less. Of course, being the frontrunner, the other candidates were targeting her, but the Senator proved she didn’t need much prodding to to prove that on the issue of giving illegals driver’s licenses in NY - as ordered by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer - she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.
Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So 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.
MR. RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license?
REP. KUCINICH: Believe what?
MR. RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license.
SEN. DODD: This is a privilege. And look, I’m as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here, but we’re dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we’re going to extend this privilege here of a driver’s license, I think, is troublesome. And I think the American people are reacting to it.
We need to deal with security on our borders, we need to deal with the attraction that draws people here, we need to deal fairly with those who are here; but this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.
MR. WILLIAMS: Who else? Senator —
SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed —
SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.
` SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) — (inaudible)?
SEN. DODD: Well, that’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker —
SEN. DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, but —
SEN. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses; one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.
SEN. DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.
SEN. CLINTON: So it’s not the full privilege.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.
SEN. CLINTON: It —
MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.
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? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.
The transcript, however, doesn’t do it justice. Here’s the video (via MKH):
Clearly, she was flustered, and sputtered along, and got a bit angry when pressed. And at the end of it all, she still wouldn’t admit whether or not she supported Spitzer’s plan. Nuance, you see, is big in the Democratic party - especially if you’re a frontrunner during campaign season.
Her campaign issued a damage control statement in which she cried foul, and accused Obama of abandoning the “politics of hope” and caving to the pundits desire for him to “go negative” on Hillary. In other words, trying to get her to clearly state her position on an issue, and criticizing her, is “going negative.”
The NYT Caucus blog reports today is a new day for the Senator, and she’s a little more clear on her opinion of Spitzer’s plan:
A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s effort to award New York driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from a what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy.
“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them.
Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives. Among those opposing it were Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois supported it.
So you can see that even in her statement, she’s still left herself some wiggle room in case she makes it to the general election.
Karol at Alarming News notes that the 9/11 Families for a Secure America group is offering $1000 to anyone who can get Hillary to definitively state what her position is on illegals having driver’s licenses.
I noticed that some female bloggers are accusing MSNBC’s Tim Russert (who moderated the debate, along with Brian Williams) and “the boys” of leading an “assault” on Hillary Clinton. Cute. I guess because Hillary’s a woman, “the boys” should have tossed softballs at her, and because they didn’t, Hillary was a “victim” of the “patriarchy” and all that (sound familiar?). And here I thought that males and females were supposed to be treated equally.
Related: Mark Noonan and Matt Margolis have filed a complaint with the FEC over Hillary’s shady fundraising practices. Clinton’s campaign has 15 days in which to respond.
Update: Fact Check has dared to critique Hillary’s answers and non-answers from the debate. I guess this means they’ve gone the “misogyny” route, too …
| Email This Post | Print This |
Interesting. This will be one of her main problems in the continuing race, as the gloves come off, both in the Dem primaries and afterwards if she is the nominee. She just doesn’t know how to roll with the punches, she is a unique combination of narcissism, entitlement, paranoia, and rigidity. She is massively inflexible and rigid about criticism, she can’t handle it, and has to find some excuse as to how it’s all a conspiracy and the good old boy patriarchy is against her. This makes her like an old stiff tree in the wind, she cracks and breaks under this kind of stress, instead of deflecting it and rolling with it. Mark my words, if she gets the nomination the debates will not be her best hour, when a Republican starts really hammering her, after weeks or months of negative campaign ads, she’s likely to lose it on camera in a way that even the MSM won’t be able to hide.
Definitely not the type of personality suited to be president.
Comment by Severian @ 10/31/2007 - 9:01 pm
Good point, Sev. And with the exception of the part about the patriarchy, your description could have just as well applied to The Goracle
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/31/2007 - 9:10 pm
True enough, Sev, but don’t underestimate how desperate the MSM will be to cover for her.
In 2000, she was just as poorly prepared and fumbling in the debates during her first Senate campaign. Rick Lazio repeatedly made her look foolish. What happened? She put on the pink pants suit and played the victim role, and the MSM jumped all over Lazio for being ungentlemanly and too agressive debating a poor woman. Expect the same next near if she wins the nomination and the GOP conducts a vigorous campaign for the White House.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 10/31/2007 - 9:53 pm
Note that Hillary at least had the proper culprit for Spitzer’s idiotic scheme. George Bush. Got that?
“Oh, darn that eeeeee-vil Dubya, for making me do stupid things! Darn him to heck!” I wonder if, when he leaves office, he’ll still have this awesome power to make Dems act like buffoons. I hope so - It’d be a shame to see them act all rational and non-moonbatty just because he goes back to his ranch full time.
Also, note that Hillary’s immediate response when facing a challenging question is outrage, a sort of “how DARE you?” That’s when the mask is likely to slip and we get to see the real person underneath. We’ll have more “tea party” and “Vast right wing conspiracy” moments from her, bank on it.
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 10/31/2007 - 10:25 pm
Burn, baby, burn!!!
Comment by camojack @ 11/1/2007 - 1:43 am
8 liars, 8 communists and 8 traitors. No further discussion is required.
Comment by Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), USN, RET @ 11/1/2007 - 2:18 am
……..and she never answered the question AT ALL! Shell game debates are a sick joke on unsuspecting fools.
Sadly, a guy like Mr. Russert knows better ( I think) but the ROE are not set up to extract reality, so the performance and puppet masters chalk up another mark in the banal inanity scategory.
Comment by forest hunter @ 11/1/2007 - 4:37 am
I’ve watched the video over and over, read the transcript again and again, and I still don’t know if Senator Clinton thinks illegal aliens should have NY State driver’s licenses! I’m sure her handlers would tell me that “she’s covered that issue previously.”
Comment by Tom TB @ 11/1/2007 - 6:32 am
Hillary shouldn’t have touched the whole issue. Gov. Spitzer is a crackpot (he’s my governor–I can say this!), and crackpot ideas should just be finessed.
Remember Ian Richardson’s turn as scheming British P.M. Francis Urquhart in the BBC series “House of Cards”?
Question: “There are those who think Gov. Spitzer’s scheme is a crackpot idea.”
Answer: “You might well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.”
Comment by Leslie @ 11/1/2007 - 11:00 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/01/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M @ 11/1/2007 - 1:50 pm
Just as I expected…Hillary’s already playing the sympathy card. She has a video up on her campaign web site of the illegal alien exchange during the debate. The caption?
“Hillary’s rivals abandon the politics of hope and pile-on at the Philadelphia Debate.”
So they’re already whining about the opponents picking on a poor defenseless woman. And being mean too (abandoning the “politics of hope”?? Puhleeez…”).
Comment by Great White Rat @ 11/1/2007 - 8:39 pm
Got a post on that very thing comin’ up shortly
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 11/1/2007 - 8:46 pm
Latest post up on La Clinton here.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 11/1/2007 - 9:20 pm
Yes, but Hillary’s carrying it to such an extreme that even John Kerry’s got to be screaming “Pick a position, already!!”
Comment by Great White Rat @ 11/1/2007 - 9:47 pm
In defence of lady Clinton… I think she said that she recognizes the value in giving a kind of driver’s license to illegal immigrants so that they can drive around legally instead of illegally as they are doing, and can be easily identified. However, she doesn’t think that it’s really the best solution to the problem, the problem being that they are illegal immigrants, but nevertheless they are there, and there are lots of them (and they are supporting the economy). So it’s yes, and no, at the same time. C’mon, start thinking outside the box, it doesn’t always have to be black or white people. No pun intended.
Also, clearly you are all coming from a conservative vantage point, and the advantage of that is that you have a nice clear framework through which to make decisions: illegal immigrants - illegal and immigrants, ‘nuf said, clearly we must be sure not to give them anything that could be a privilege. Driver’s licenses are a privelige, therefore, no driver’s licenses for the illegal immigrants. If you try and look at it from a wider perspective however, it’s not as simple as all that, hence the difficulty in making a snap decision on a topic. Personally I applaud the ability to think about something from different angles in order to come up with a decision or solution that is well thought through. (And yes, I realize I am a minority here).
At the same time, I can see what you’re saying about Hilary being scared to take positions because she’s excessively concerned about voter reactions. I think that is a sad truth. She appears to be terrified of saying the wrong thing and alienating some fickle group of voters who will suddenly stop supporting her on the basis of one decision. Maybe the voters are that fickle, who knows? But my thinking is that if people support her, they’ll support her regardless of which way she goes on giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. She needs to stick to her guns and trust the people to follow her. I mean c’mon, look at Bush, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from that is that if you don’t falter in what you’re saying (it’s best if you just repeat the same thing lots because it saves you from having to learn new vocabulary and increases the likelihood of your under-educated masses absorbing what you’ve said) the people will think you’re strong and will follow you to hell and back. Most people hardly care what comes out of your mouth as long as you speak it with a solid conviction and give every appearance of being strong and unwavering.
I think Hilary could learn a lot from Bush. I mean, it’s dead scary that he got voted in twice. And legitimately at least once. But if you think about it, it’s real easy to understand. Real easy.
Comment by Nobody Asked You @ 11/7/2007 - 2:00 pm