Media jump on chance to invoke comparisons to Kerry over Clinton's driver's license response
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's performance during the Democratic presidential
debate, Chris Matthews claimed that Clinton made herself "look like a switcher"
when responding to questions about her views on Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to
allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. In fact, Clinton
maintained that Spitzer's plan "ma[de] sense," explaining that "what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is
fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about
comprehensive immigration reform" and claiming: "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." Matthews and other media figures invoked Sen.
John Kerry's alleged "flip-flopping," suggesting that Clinton made inconsistent
statements.
On the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (NY) performance in the October 30 Democratic presidential debate at Drexel University, host Joe Scarborough asked MSNBC host Chris Matthews: "Do you think she made her first big mistake the other night in the debate? Do you think she's going to pay for it?" Scarborough was referring to Clinton's statements regarding the proposal by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer [D] to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Matthews claimed that Clinton made herself "look like a switcher" when discussing the issue during the debate and added, "This is what killed [former Democratic presidential candidate George] McGovern. This is what killed every Democrat that I can think of." Scarborough responded, "And Chris ... we saw that in the last campaign in 2004, where [Sen.] John Kerry [MA] sometimes had trouble getting his footing on where he stood on the Iraq war." Matthews then stated: "Eighty-seven million [sic] for, eighty-seven against; I voted for and against it -- that became ... basically, the windsurfing Strauss waltz, which they used for the ad. It is certainly what McGovern was killed on back in '72. It's bad enough being a lefty, but when you look like you're a switcher."
The question posed to Clinton by the debate's co-moderator, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, was: "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?" Clinton responded by saying that Spitzer is trying to make the best of a bad situation created by "the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," and saying that such reform is needed "because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap." She said:
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.
Moments later, after Sen. Chris Dodd (CT) responded to Russert's question, "Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?" Clinton said: "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." When Dodd then said that Clinton had in fact said she supported the policy, telling Clinton: "You said -- you said yes." Clinton replied, "No." Dodd said, "You thought it made sense to do it." Clinton then continued, "No, I didn't, Chris."
Later, when Russert specifically asked Clinton: "Do you support his [Spitzer's] plan?" Clinton replied: "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 [President] 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."
On the October 31 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford said of Clinton's statements on the driver's license issue: "I think what we find often with Senator Clinton, like her husband, is she's a policy wonk, Keith, and, unlike the media, policy wonks don't tend to think about these kinds of issues in black or white and yes or no and up and down. And it's more complicated than that, and many times that's where the real answers are, just complicated and longer. And that's what she was doing here. We do have this problem with not being able -- you can't manage what you can't measure, and the country doesn't know who these people are, these illegal immigrants or undocumented workers. And she is seeing the need to actually try to find ways to ... not document them, but actually measure them, know where they are. And that's all she was saying."
Similarly, in an October 31 post on his blog, Ezra Klein wrote:
[U]nlike everyone else, I thought it was a damn good answer. She did seek a couple sidesteps and refused to give a flat yes or no, but she defended her reasoning on the issue, accurately explained the forces and pressures behind Spitzer's decision, and refused to offer the truly craven evasive answer of a simple "no." When Dodd challenged her, and she struck back with, "well, if an illegal immigrant hits you in a car, how are you going to identify them," I thought it was one of the night's better moments.
From the October 30 Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, which was co-moderated by NBC News anchor Brian Williams:
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?
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.
RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (OH): Believe what?
RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.
DODD: Well, 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.
CLINTON: Well --
WILLIAMS: Senator, let's --
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.
DODD: Now, wait. Wait.
CLINTON: And we have failed --
DODD: Wait a minute.
CLINTON: We have failed --
DODD: No, no, no. You said -- you said yes.
CLINTON: No --
DODD: You thought it made sense to do it.
CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving on the roads?
DODD: Well, that's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far --
CLINTON: Well --
DODD: -- in my view.
CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker --
DODD: There's ways of dealing with that.
CLINTON: Well, but --
DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.
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. So, it's not the full privilege.
DODD: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.
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.
CLINTON: It --
RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?
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.
Scarborough and Matthews were not the only media figures to invoke Kerry's alleged "flip-flopping" when discussing Clinton's performance in the debate. For instance:
- In his November 1 Washington Post "Media Notes" column, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote that the "image" of Clinton as "a triangulator. A trimmer. A carefully calculating pol who says what people want to hear ... could damage Clinton long after everyone has forgotten about her specific answer on MSNBC. Remember the Bush ad that showed John Kerry windsurfing left and right in a flip-flopping metaphor?"
- During the October 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing Clinton's performance at the debate, Republican pollster Frank Luntz asserted: "[T]he worst thing that you can do in a Democratic presidential primary is to show inconsistencies. Democrats are very much afraid that they will recreate what happened in 2004 when John Kerry was defeated because he held different positions on the same issue."
From the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Let's bring in Chris Matthews. He's the host of Hardball. He's also the author of the newly released Life's A Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation and Success, and he's with us right now. Chris! My God, it is open season on Hillary Clinton. Do you think she made her first big mistake the other night in the debate? Do you think she's going to pay for it?
MATTHEWS: Well, she'll pay for it in the general election for sure, because she's now creating the template for the general. The big thing to do in politics if you want to help your opponents is not only take a position, which is unpopular with most voters -- which she did on the driver's licenses -- but make yourself look like a switcher: somebody that isn't going to stand for something, that's going to switch whenever it's convenient.
This is what killed McGovern. This is what killed every Democrat that I can think of. Not just be on the left, but be seen as a switcher, someone that is not reliable. And she did -- she managed to do both in about a minute.
SCARBOROUGH: And Chris, you saw -- we saw that in the last campaign in 2004, where John Kerry sometimes had trouble getting his footing on where he stood on the Iraq war.
MATTHEWS: Eighty-seven million [sic] for, eighty-seven against; I voted for and against it -- that became the -- basically, the windsurfing Strauss waltz, which they used for the ad. It is certainly what McGovern was killed on back in '72. It's bad enough being a lefty, but when you look like you're a switcher --
Now Hillary Clinton -- I've been doing this thing on the show -- I've been doing sort of short speech proposals for these people. And I'm going to do one for Hillary tonight to do her 180. It's what her husband should have done on Monica when he got caught: switch. Finally admit you're wrong. Kill it. Do not drag this thing out for a year and a half. If she keeps this position, she will lose.
You cannot take the position of papering over illegality. American citizenship is real. It's not a question of a document. It's not a question of papering over something. You're either a citizen; you're either in this country legally or you're not. When people say, "undocumented worker," you know they're already BS-ing you. And if she keeps that up, she's going to lose.
From the October 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Frank, let me put these two together here, because I was very fascinated to me that the early attacks didn't work, but it almost became a preview of what would happen later in the debate. In that particular instance, on Social Security, the archives issue, she's had a blue ribbon commission on one, the Charlie Rangel tax increase, and then, of course, this big debacle on immigration. They almost predicted this uncertainty, this flip-flopping, this vacillating on hers. So it seems that they really were preparing the audience for what was to come.
LUNTZ: Well, what was happening was, as the debate went along, she was being held more and more accountable for what she had done, for what she had said. And the worst thing that you can do in a Democratic presidential primary is to show inconsistencies. Democrats are very much afraid that they will recreate what happened in 2004 when John Kerry was defeated because he held different positions on the same issue.
And the fact is, Senator Clinton, up until this point, had the perfect response, but she was never challenged. The Republicans took her on, but that was in a Republican debate. For the first time, the Democrats challenged her.
First of all Senator Clinton, these are not "undocumented workers", they are illegal aliens and we should not be giving legal documents to illegals.
Your word parsing and redefining of that term alone is all one needs to know that you are most definitely straddling the political fence and will not take a principled position here.......not unlike many in your party, and many in the Republican party, headed by our President.
This isn't about Senator Clinton's answers or opinions, as you very well know. It's about the MEDIA'S response...read the headline again and again, until you get it: "Media jump on chance to invoke comparisons"
If Senator Clinton had not given such a muddled and contradictory response, there would be no "jumping", as MMFA calls it. Which it is not. It is holding candidates accountable for their words, which I would hope you would support.
Well...I heard it and I didn't have ANY difficulty understanding her point. Does that make me smarter than the average MM "reporter"? I'd have to say yes, it does.
Pity more people can't be bothered...and that includes "reporters"...to delve into a nuanced answer and UNDERSTAND that the question asked involves more than can be put into a "yes" or "no"answer. Senator Clinton clearly DOES understand that.
I fully understand the pros and cons of the issue - we need to know who is on our roads, who is driving, insurance, etc, etc.
However, that difficulty and complexity does not give politicians license to equivocate and waffle around a tough issue JUST because you may piss off some constituent or another. And all this nuance baloney and how this issue can't handle a yes or answer is ridiculous - and just an excuse for being afraid to take a principled stand, one way or another.
Sorry, you may buy that excuse, but I expect our leaders to give straight answers and explain why.....you are fine with less, that is your business.
"I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."
That's not a straight answer? Look straight to ME.
"I am not saying I am against abortions or would outlaw them, but I can certainly understand the pro-life position"
If Hillary had nuanced her way through that question, you all would go ballistic.
"If Hillary had nuanced her way through that question, you all would go ballistic. "
Not me. I could have said exactly that statement myself. I fully understand the anti-abortion stance (I refuse to call it pro-life) but I vehemently disagree with it. But I do UNDERSTAND it.
So if she was asked "Are you for or against a woman's right to choose?".........and gave the answer above, how do you think that would be received by all her defenders here?
"So if she was asked "Are you for or against a woman's right to choose?".........and gave the answer above, how do you think that would be received by all her defenders here?"
Who cares? I only know how *I* would receive it...and that is I would understand that SHE understands it's not always a yes or no answer that is correct.
But, of course, the comparison is false. Anyone driving without a license is a danger to more than just themselves...they are a potential danger to anyone else on the road, the assumption being that because they aren't licensed they haven't been tested for competency behind the wheel either.
A woman's right to choose is a decision that affects HER and no one else. You need a better comparison.
Personally, I'd rather an undocumented worker was AT LEAST tested and licensed to drive that car if they're going to drive anyway...which they are. But then, I also have the radical idea that they should be treated in hospitals and clinics too...so they don't infect untold numbers of other people with untreated communicable diseases. And yes, I claim that as a totally selfish response...it helps keep ME safe too.
DOGGONE:
It's GREAT that your policy positions are informed by SELF-INTEREST. No need to apologize.
I confess as well, my Liberalism is a result of Self-Interest as well. But let's be clear, there are two kinds of self-interest.
Simple self-interest involves what's best TODAY, what will bring in the most money THIS QUARTER, what policy will benefit me TODAY. Such thinking ignores the future, and ignores the effects on other people. It demonstrates NO social responsibility. It says, "The BEST and ONLY thing required of me in America is to make the most money I possibly can. That's the highest calling: personal financial success. And I will be called an "achiever.")
There is ANOTHER kind of self-interest, and it is ENLIGHTENED self interest. It recognizes that it does no good to possess ALL THE GOLD in a community that is racked with disease, starvation, and suffering. It recognizes that each of our quality of life is DEPENDENT on having a society that is functioning to allow people to have at least minimal shelter, clothing, health care, and food. Seeing to it that those in need are tended to is a SELFISH interest, because it makes for a better nation, one which is more livable and happy.
That it's also the compassionate and moral thing to do is gravy.
All Rightwing policy is based exclusively on Simple Self-Interest, focused only on the SELF and the MOMENT. That is why I oppose it. It is both greedy and short-sighted, and will ultimately result in a FAILED society.
Thanks Tex! And I can't help but think of the "social network" that so many cons despise. It's an absolute wonder to me that they seem to regard it as an expense they shouldn't have to pay...instead of (and how *I* view it) as an INVESTMENT that will pay off handsomely in the future.
It seem so plain to ME that a happy, healthy, income earning populace has so much more potential for spending money (and enriching the sellers) than does a poor, ill, wretched populace. But the cons just can't seem to see it that way. That same "personally selfish" attitude, no doubt.
My guess would be that you are equally distraught with Mukaskey's refusal to answer the question, "Is waterboarding illegal?"?
Or is that a more complex issue, totally unsuited to a straight-up answer? And Bungle: "Mukaskey or nobody" - now that is straight up!
TOMMY:
Hilariously, you just demonstrated how scores of Republicans have skirted around the abortion issue. "I'm against abortion myself, but ..." or "I'm all for a woman's rights, but ... ", or "I have my personal views, but it's a State's Rights question..."
We've heard them all, thousands of times. Did you think we wouldn't recognize this famous Republican issue on which there is MUCH failure to be "principled"? LOL
Next time, try to pick an example that actually makes YOUR point, instead of helping out your opponents.
(I plan to go to the Russert thread now and see if you EVER got around to actually articulating a PRINCIPLE you have and how you apply it. I'm not holding my breath.)
Like her husband, she does that, in effect, in that she states her goal as, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Not a peep from the left, and who are you to speak for the left anyway?
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.
CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense.
As a matter of fact, it's not a straight answer. She spent two minutes responding to the question trying to rationalize the issue rather than state a real opinion. After Dodd made the argument opposing her previous argument, she wanted everyone to realize she never came out for the plan...which she now has...it's not a straight answer.
I somewhat agree with your thoughts. She did try to both be supportive of Spitzer at the same time try to not say anything that could be pounced upon...driver licenses for illegals???
But...the issue of illegal immigration cannot be reduced to all these little bandaid ideas. We do need a rational national policy, as she did say.
In the end, the problem was not whether she supported the initiative or not. Nor is it whether or not she recognised it as a complicated issue. The problem is that she fell headlong into a narrative other candidates and the media have been publicising for some time. Her defense of Spitzer would have been fine had she not decided that Dodd made points and she had to essentially distance herself from an answer she'd given a minute and a half before. Further ridiculous was that she determined it necessary to embrace whole-heartedly the program a day later.
Only an idiot sees black and white when there's lots of gray. Psst, a politician recently ran on black-and-white, good-and-evil; how'd that work out, Tommy? Some things are complex.
For instance: you don't give illegals (and the laws call them "undocumented," not "illegal") driver's licenses, they can't get insurance. If they don't have insurance, I sure hope you have that protection on your insurance, because they won't be able to pay.
If you don't give them some form of license, I'll tell you what: there's a thriving industry, right near the DMV offices, in selling counterfeit ID. That won't have "Not for Immigration Purposes" on the license, will it? That's a security risk. And if those fake licenses are mass-produced, sheer economics tells you they'll get very, very good.
Yeah, yeah, I know this simple-minded rhetoric is a big political score for the GOP. It's all they got going anymore. That makes it a good wedge issue. And if you keep going with that rabble-rousing, maybe someday you'll be able to treat the undocumented Mexicans like the Japanese interned in California. And we'll have another everlasting shame to our name.
What brought in all those Mexicans? Reaganism. Until then, American labor standards, were strong enough to keep them out except for seasonal farm labor. There's always been a kind of informality about the border with Mexico. But it's the right that wants a) to militarize it, make it the Rio Grande Wall with guard towers and machine guns, but b) allow all the cash and goods to cross the border that you can, because that's "free trade." Let in the one, you let in the other.
Doggone - I wouldn't expect everyone around here to be able to comprehend the concept of nuance. Some limit themselves to binary thinking on issues. Some issues aren't as easy as that.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but given the circumstances, she gave the best answer she could give - seeing that she was getting sandbagged by Russert in particular.
Just my opinion - as always..
Nuance and doublespeak - a slick politician's bread and butter. Glad so many of you live off of that diet.
Yes let's not forget the other end of that spectrum. It sure seems to be a favorite of our current administration and the neo-con crowd.
Simplistic, yes / no, sound bite answers. Sounds good, but lacks substance and real solutions. The mainstay of the lazy and un-informed.
Your inability to defend waffling politicians by pointing to an off-topic deflection about neocons is very telling.
New Flash -----> Tommy your opinion is not the end all be all. Just because you repeat yourself over and over on this topic doesn't mean everyone agrees with you or that your correct..
From your numerous postings on this topic you've made it very clear that you can only stomach simplistic, yes/no answers from politicians. Live in your little sound bite world, I could care less. Anyone giving a nuanced answer must be participating in dishonest double speak.... Sure thing.
I don't agree with your characterization as I'm sure many other people do not.
Whenever you offer your flailing one-sided partisan opinion, then I know if we disagree, then my opinion is the end all......thanks for clarifying.
Totally correct! If I had the fortitude to abide the misrepresentations, I would ignore tommy. However, this is an area in which I fall short of patience.
What a sad, sad life your haughtiness affords you.
Tommy, you don't get to define what a waffle is. You're saying there's a simple answer. Sorry to break it to you, but there's not.
She handled this matter poorly. No surprise. She's a featherweight in a field of parrots.
I expect a politician to give a yes or no answer to "how will you vote on this bill?" Unlike you, I expect a politician to see the complexities of issues. Subtitle: "Why Are We in Iraq?" by Little Georgie Blank-and-White.
Believe me...I DON'T expect everyone here (or anywhere) to understand that sometimes a nuanced answer is the only viable alternative. I consider that it's the ability to be able to understand that that keeps those of us who can from being regressives.
You find no contradiction in the statements below?
Dodd said, "You thought it made sense to do it." Clinton then continued, "No, I didn't, Chris.
CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do?
I didn't have ANY difficulty understanding her point either. She gave the most honest answer of the night I believe.
What about Dodd's response?
DEX:
Dodd said Hillary said, 'YES, I support it.' She did not say that. Dodd was incorrect. She DID say it made a lot of sense. That's not the same thing.
It may make a lot of sense for me to buy a new car, but that doesn't mean I've actually BOUGHT one. It means I'm open to the options, and will be considering making a decision.
It IS "Gotcha", and Dodd made a leap by saying she said "YES" when she did no such thing. The Rightwing is turning handsprings trying to equate "makes a lot of sense" with a SOLID STATEMENT OF A YES VOTE 'FOR'.
She explained herself well, and corrected Dodd's mistaken impression. As for Russert and the rest of the Rightwing pack, they're looking for any scrap to pounce on and make the "gotcha that ended the campaign" for Hillary.
Sorry, boys. This ain't it. Hillary's getting stronger, and her detractors are looking increasingly desperate in their quest for the "Dean Scream" or the "Kerry 'voted for before I voted against."
You know, the one statement out of thirty thousand they can distort to try to end a political career. They LUST for that moment, and they believe they can find it if they just keep looking. If they can just ridicule and frame and replay distorted versions and, you know, kill Hillary's bid. They want it so bad, the desperation is seeping out of their every pore.
Tommy -
Well said - HRC is a flip-flopper and a liar. The Democrat Party is starting to realize how bad it is going to be to try to defend her.
For Tommy on “nuance” and “certainty”:
“Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure.”
-- Thomas Edison.
The thoroughly satisfied man is certain of his decisions, often believes he is directly instructed by God, and never does the thought he might be wrong cross his mind. This describes all NeoCons, including Bush, Cheney, Kristol, and all the bloviating talking heads of Media. FAILURES all, and thanks for noticing, Tom Edison.
“Show me a man who cannot bother to do little things and I'll show you a man who cannot be trusted to do big things.” -- Lawrence Bell
The building blocks of REASON and LOGIC are study, learning, and constant questioning. Arriving at understandings with people unlike yourself requires compromise, empathy, and knowledge; this skill is often called “diplomacy”. We currently are led as a nation by people who are disdainful of learning, who eschew reading, who believe their “gut” is a better guide to decision making than detailed examination of an issue. The Rightwing as a whole will vilify and ridicule the “egghead intellectuals”, people who have actually made an effort at becoming educated. YES or NO answers call for only a coin to flip, but governing a people of diverse cultures demands much much more. NeoCons cannot be bothered.
“Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of man you are.”
-- Thomas Carlyle
A no-brainer. We are each known by who we support and defend, and who we attack and oppose.
Tommy, how likely are you to vote for Hillary? What then gives you any right to bully her? Who freakin' cares what you think?
I think it was a smart statement. It can of course be labelled muddled and contradictory, depends on what you want out of Ms Clinton. Do you really think the Axis of Weasels needs much of anything to begin howling about Hillary?
Will they perform equally for Rudy, Fred, or Mit? So far I don't see any evidence of their inclination to do this.
EWE, I think you already know the answer to that. Has the corporate media really taken any of the Republican candidates to task on anything?
I just wonder, with regards to the media, if a Dem does get elected as prez, will they get a 4-6 year pass like shrub did or will they be put under the microscope, with every little detail of their administration being presented as topics for derision and criticism?
You must be joking. I'm pretty sure I saw "Bush is the worst president in US History" on various political blogs about 1 day after he was inaugurated.
Corporate Media
Corporate Media
Corporate Media
political blog
One of these things is not like the others...
Confuse correlation and causation a lot, HBL? In any event, the idea that MSNBC and CNN are anything but left-leaning is so laughable I find it embarrassing.
Yes I confess a leading question there. As for the media's actions if she's elected. Finger nails on a blackboard is how I think they'll sound. Four to eight years of it.
I suppose we could avoid it by just asking which Republican candidate they want to see in the white house, and then complying with their wishes. Don't think to many here would go along with this. In which case I'd recomend some serious hearing protection if any Demotratic candidate wins the prize.
It was clear as a bell to me. It is not a yes/no problem. Mrs Clinton invoked the strength of this democracy. We talk and discuss the issue and come up with a majority rule. And vote.
Well that's it then. Let's add another option for Congress when they are voting on bills, etc.
1) Yea
2) Ney
3) Not sure, need to poll focus groups, special interest groups, can't committ now, too controversial.
Happy?
that is not what I said. Stop translating.
Just one simple vote of yes or no is going to make all the problems that currently plague our country in regards to immigration go away?
Who knew it was going to be that easy?
What a ridiculous statement to make......and a major straw argument to boot.
You mean like stating the only viable 3rd alternative is
"3) Not sure, need to poll focus groups, special interest groups, can't committ now, too controversial"
sure, sure...
Then you help me. If it's not Yes, or not No, then what is the third option? Not sure is the third option. Your arguments can't even hold themselves to that standard.
Yes, "not sure" is a valid answer. Why is it so hard to understand this? Please explain it to me. Maybe your right, but I am really stumped as to why someone cannot say "I don't know".
TOMMY:
Legislation to be VOTED on has been endlessly debated, compromised, amended and rewritten to a final BILL with spelled out language in specific terms.
Then, yes indeed, a YES or NO vote is called for.
Which brings us to the question posed to Hillary. What are the PARTICULARS of any notion to let illegal aliens have licenses? What PROPOSAL is on the table?
The answer is simple: THERE IS NO SUCH BILL, LAW, or SPECIFIED PROPOSAL. It's just an "idea" at this stage, posed to address a growing PROBLEM.
Is it a GOOD idea? Hillary says, yes it is. Would she vote YES or NO on that idea? THAT depends on all the particulars involved in getting legislation to a point it can be voted on.
Perhaps YOU, TOMMY, could tell us the particulars of what Hillary was being asked to endorse or reject? Can you?
Does the plan call for a GIVING or a license, or would it have to be tested first? Will the drivers' written test be in English Only? Could that license be used to board an airplane? Would the license possessor also have to have insurance on their car and person? Would the license be THE SAME as the standard one citizens receive, or would it be different? If different, HOW?
The answers to THESE questions flesh out an "IDEA" that may or may not be "good", into an actual proposal that can be voted upon YES or NO.
Until that flesh is provided, it is complete folly to expect a commitment.
The Iraq funding bill Kerry voted FOR, before the one he voted AGAINST ... WERE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BILLS. But the rightwing smearmeisters don't bother themselves with such little details.
We do not live in a democracy and it is not majority rule. We elect representatives who vote in what is in the country's and their constituent's best interest, in their view. Sometimes they might vote against public opinion (majority rule) because it's the right thing to do in their view.
Hillary didn't say yes to the question, but she did imply that Spitzer's plan was sensible. And then she told Dodd she didn't say that. And then she said to Russert: "It makes a lot of sense."
And she just should've let Dodd talk and then moved on to the next question. Not sure why if she wanted to dodge a direct answer to Russert's question she decided to answer it later.
Only Russert wouldn't let it go. He knew he had gotten her in another of his phony controversies, and he would be applauded by his main audience: the right.
OK, so Hillary didn't flip-flop DURING the debate on this issue, but she sure did the next day in a press release when her campaign said she supports proposals "like Governor Spitzer's" am I wrong?
As I said yesterday, I like Hillary a lot, but she does have trouble answering questions affirmatively, even the presidential records-release one, where she she claimed that she wasn't in position to decide whether her First Lady conversations with Bill should be given to the public. Michael Isikoff recently wrote about this in Newsweek, which is where I assume Russert took his cue from. Her and Bill's refusal to release them (the ones relating to policy matters) in a timely manner should trouble even the most ardent Hillary supporter.
I too am supporting Hillary at this time, but you're right, she should just give the "Senate Confirmation Hearing" answer and say "this is what I think the issues are, but I'm not going to answer as if it was me making the decision."
You know Dexter, all Hillary had to do was say the basic idea of what Governor Spitzer is trying to do makes sense, but his plan is not good enough for her to support. But she didn't want to sound like she was turning her back on her Governor so the next day after the debate she/her campaign put out a statement that says she pretty much now supports his plan.
From Newsday 11/1/07: "Howard Wolfson clarified that clarification - telling Newsday his boss supported the basic concept of offering undocumented workers licenses, 'absent comprehensive federal immigration reform.'"
And though I love MMFA and read it every day, it's unfortunate that they will mislead their readers and not put a NOTE at the end of this item saying that Senator Clinton now DOES endorse Spitzer's plan (or rather, state plans "like" his).
This is why a lot of righties accuse MMFA of being a SPIN outfit and staunch defender of Hillary: they may rightly point out misinformation and attacks on Hillary by the MSM and the right, but they don't tell you all you need to know about Hillary's stances on the issues. And that's too bad; for us (and for them as an organization that I value highly).
Chuck, I agree with you and strive to make the same points about a lot of posts on this site. Well said.
I'm not sure why Hillary's answer is considered 'double talk'. She told a New Hampshire paper that the ideal makes a lot of sense not that she supports it but she understands that the governor has to do something to get a handle on illegal immigration problem that the federal government has failed to do.
Russet question was: Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license.
She goes on to explain why the idea makes sense. She does not in her explanation say that she supports the idea.
His second question to her is asking her IF SHE SUPPORTS giving driver’s license. Russet says: 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.
Her answer is: 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.
Pearl,
Can you please boil down all of your response into a simple yes/no answer with a 30 second "made for TV" explanation?
My head hurts just looking at it your response... I would feel so much better if I knew that you were just against those nasty illegal immigrants. I'm not really interested in the details on the "how".
MHK, what really gets me is those who on the one hand acknowledge that illegal immigration is a complex issue but somehow expect her to answer a simple yes or no . That just does not make common sense especially when you plan to use whatever her answer is against her. I also think MSM and her opponents were simply looking for anything to create a 'gotcha' moment for Hillary. I'm sorry but this was not really a 'gotcha' moment. If you can read, while you may not like her short answer you can clearly see that while the idea makes sense to her she does not agree with the governor.
I'm not Hillary supporter but she seems to be the only one under the microscope and it's leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Heck these guys keep this up and more women will support her even thought they don't like her.
Pearlene, MHK has falsley implied that Russert's question was not a direct question on a particular subject within the immigration debate. She contradicted herself on that issue, not necessarily on the broad, complex immigration issue as a whole.
what really gets me is those who on the one hand acknowledge that illegal immigration is a complex issue but somehow expect her to answer a simple yes or no
I agree Pearlene to a point.
But this particular issue concerning giving ILLEGAL aliens drivers licenses is not complex, and does not need to be *nuanced*, *parsed* or *debated*
The answer is a very simple: NO
It is not a good idea. It does not make sense. It's a no-brainer...
What Hillary tried to do here is have it both ways. She couldn't give a straight answer because she obviously didn't want to step on NY Governor Spitzer's toes, nor upset those Hispanic groups that favor treating ILLEGALS as if they were LEGAL citizens.
What really makes me laugh is what the reaction here would have been IF any Republican had tried this double speak. I know for certain no one on the Left would be quite so understanding.
Hey Jeter, Happy Friday!!!!
On it's face, the answer is 'no', but I find myself in writing the answer wanting to discuss the issue further not fully comfortable with such a simple answer. I believe driving is a privilege not a right. Not all American citizens have the privilege to drive so on it's face the answer is 'no'. But still......
As far as 'double speak' all politicians do it and we know that. The reaction here would probably have been critical because this site is for conservative misinformation, opinions and such and we all know that as well. The slant or bias is evident in the mission statement, I like it hear, I'm no a conservative.
Now I'm off for a Friday lunch with the girls, wine of course and a game of bingo. ;-)
So, you have a constitutional right to be stupid and have politicians not make your head do some work on your own?
Dex,
Being sarcastic. I really agree with Pearl on this issue. Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved with simple yes/ no answers. I know that many of the people against amnesty or trying to come up with a realistic working situation will never agree with any remedy unless it's punishment. Are Drivers License a possible solution? Hell I don't know, but one thing I do know is that having a knee jerk reaction about a proposed solution without looking at all of the ramifications is simplistic and foolish.
Does anyone realize that with a driver's license illegal immigrants can take them register to vote.
Excerpts from Fund's "Morning Joe" appearance:
more:
FUND: Here's the thing. An immigration investigation by the federal government found 4,000 probable illegal voters in that race. It was decided by less than 1,000 votes. Eight of the 9-11 hijackers, eight of the 19 hijackers, were registered to vote -- because they'd gotten driver's licenses.I'm confused on one point...if they get a drivers license, they get a photo ID, so that photo ID would work at the voting booth, nullifying Spitzer's argument. Right?
It doesn't make much sense to me.
Besides, I don't get Hillary's statement:
CLINTON: ... 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.
-----
Why does she say "THEY are driving on OUR roads"? Isn't that illegal without a driver's license?
Will having a driver's license make it their roads too?
How will illegal immigrants having a driver's license prevent accidents?
Is this all about buying insurance?
Where are these illegal immigrants getting the cars to drive?
Why doesn't someone ask Clinton what effect having driver's licenses by illegal immigrants will have on voter registration?
Why can we all talk about it, but she can't?
How would an illegal immigrant get a driver's license? Do you just walk up to BOMV and ask?
How do you prove you are who you say you are? I would guess most illegal immigrants didn't pack a birth certificate when they entered the country.
Couldn't one person get a driver's license in one office using the name of.. say, John Doe, at 123 Main St. and go to the next one and say his name is Jim Doe at 123 Elm St?
What happens if an illegal immigrant fails his/her driver's test?
Are they doomed to be back in the shadows?
Please excuse the cross poting. Here is another excerpt from John Fund in today's WSJ Opinion Journal. I'm interested in seeing if anyone supports here supports Spitzer's changes.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.
Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).
Take a deep breath AA...
First off, I would seriously question John Fund's assertion that "80% of Americans support photo ID at the voting booth." I would guess that the question was rigged, or he just flat-out lied.
The Wall Street Journal editoria page is a well-known gathering spot for conservative liars.
Second, Clinton is absolutely correct that all felons should have their voting rights restored when they have completed their sentence. When they've paid their dues, they're set free, and so should be free to vote again.
Third, her idea for universal absentee balloting is absolutely correct. We need to make it easier for people to vote (not harder), and absentee voting is the best way to do it. The entire state of Oregon now votes by mail. It is a big success and there is no fraud.
Voter fraud? Give me a break. That's a phony issue touted by Republicans to deflect from their massive election fraud.
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/05/24/justice-department-scandal-greg-palast/
I absloutely agree with you fungus. I am an ex Felon, over 7 years removed from my conviction, and I sincerely believe I deserve to vote. I completed my time and parole and I have paid my dues for my crime. I'm thankful i live here in Texas, where my right to vote was fully restored. And this is a state that is known for its tough on crime stance, and yet they allow us to have our voting rights back.
The Gorillary makes Kerry look like a man of steely conviction.
I'm not sure what you're saying.Are you more attracted to Hillary or Kerry?
So, in order to conclude that this was not a Kerry-esque flip-flop, you must believe that Sen. Clinton meant:
1 It makes a lot of sense;
2 She's not for it.
I can see the campaign banner now: "Vote for Hillary Clinton, the candidate who's against things that make a lot of sense!"
what a joke
And this is how the Repugnantcan side con not only spin but outright lie...
On the November 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, discussing criticism of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) comments on a proposal by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, co-host Steve Doocy asserted that Clinton said in an October 31 campaign statement, "As president, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this necessary." Fox displayed an on-air graphic of the text as read by Doocy, who then asked, "So what's that mean?" Co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "I don't know. It's hard to understand, and I guess that might be the point, guys." But as The Washington Post and The Boston Globe both reported November 1, the statement issued by the Clinton campaign actually said: "As President, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make [the New York proposal] unnecessary" [emphasis added].
Clinton's October 31 statement, quoted by the Post and the Globe, read as follows:
From the November 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Craig Crawford is the only media person out of those quoted above, that actually said what is true. Why does the media do that? Why do they take a statement that has no or yes answer, but somewhere in the middle?
It is true that undocumented workers are here in the millions, and we have no way of finding out who they are, where they are, and so forth.
But back to the media, they have more of an impact than any one vehicle where it comes to informing the public. They are the ones putting a bad spin on this. Also, Tim Russert was horrible during this debate. I thought he delighted in trying to get Hillary to 'miss a beat'. And I thought this before the driver's license fiasco.
And I am no longer for John Edwards. He does not have leadership appeal after the way he attacked Clinton.
Our country did well during the 1990's under Bill Clinton's leadership. And we all know that another Republican President would be the worst thing that could happen to our country - and by Democrats attacking each other - it could make a Republican appealing to some voters.
Thank you,
Mclindar
I do still support Edwards. He has been consistent in his advocacy for labor and fair trade policy, and outsourcing of jobs.
The only disappointment with him was his answer on legalization of marijuana; however I recognize that taking a positive, progressive position on that would be politically dicey to say the least.
See? According to our Republican friends here, that means he's not being courageous and clear. And after all, 86% of the people support legalization of marijuana!!! (I'm not going to cite a poll, I just pulled that number out of my behind. It's clear, punchy, and a lie, but we don't live in a democracy, you know, so nobody can tell the difference.) But also, don't you realize that this will mean that illegals will end up stoned on marijuana and voting in Republican primaries? Hmm, ten million stoned Mexicans couldn't do worse in nominating candidates than the Republicans are doing, of course, but that's another story.
The question had no place being asked.
The driver license issue is not germane to the presidential candidates - it is an issue between the governor of New York and his state.
As Hillary stated, the Bush Administration's refusal to enforce current law is what has generated this problem, and from the state's point of view, issuing licenses which will not be able to be used for federal identification purposes just as eighteen or so other states currently issue licenses to those who are going to drive anyway (like these drivers care about legalities - they are, after all, here illegally!) and for the state to be able to, even to some degree, know who is in the state, is all the state can do in its own interests. This problem must be resolved on the federal level by enforcing existing laws.
We all know the Democrats' position about what to do to address the issue of illegal aliens presently in our country, and what their position is to ameliorate the problem on a federal level - which is similar to Reagan's and unbelievably almost exactly the same as Bush's position!