HRC Now Has An Answer On Immigration

There are several reasons to explain why Sen. Hillary Clinton, in a press statement distributed narrowly, has come out firmly against the governments' giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- or "undocumented persons."

First, it's possible she did not want to box in Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Now that he's killed his proposal, well, you can't rekill something that's dead.

Second, it's possible that she studied the issue as promised and discovered, on the same day the issue went away, that she was opposed to it.

It's true that she never explicitly said she favored the particularities of Spitzer's approach, only that she accepted his desire to do something in lieu of comprehensive immigration reform on a federal level.

From the standpoint of politics, Clinton has apparently decided that the lumps she'll take today -- that she massaged her position, changed her position -- a Chris Dodd spokesman called it "flipflopping cubed" -- are much less damaging the lumps she'd take in the general election if she did not set a marker of opposition. Even for Democrats, the politics of immigration are poisonous -- it could kill them among white working class men; among Midwesterners; comprehensive reform might be a second-term issue for the next Democratic president. The Democratic base is split; so are its presidential candidates.

During tomorrow night's debate, expect Clinton say something along the lines of: "I really didn't want to influence the debate in New York and make it more difficult for Gov. Spitzer, who is wrestling with a really difficult problem. But as a matter of principle, I don't personally believe that undocumented workers should be provided with driver's license."

But Clinton was yoked to Spitzer from the beginning owing largely to her own equivocation during the October 30th debate.

Bill Burton, Barack Obama's spokesman, couldn't resist: "When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them."

Comments

How about this:

She made Spitzer kill it himself, on the eve of the next debate, because of all the anti-license freaking out in the public that followed the last debate. She and Spitzer have some kind of pact. And he looks miserable.

Posted by Phoebe | November 14, 2007 7:51 PM

Marc: Since when did you become a Clinton apologist???

Posted by David | November 14, 2007 7:54 PM

What does Obama do? He is unequivocably on record as supporting drivers licenses for illegals:

Russert: Are you for it or against it?

Obama: I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.

He either flip-flops for political expediency (thus undercutting his holier-than-thou stance) or he takes a pummeling for a hideously unpopular position. Welcome to the big leagues. Clinton just set a trap for him.

Posted by hwc | November 14, 2007 8:03 PM

Easy there hwc...

Big leagues? Veerrryyy Progressive. That's the problem with you Clintonistas. Its all a game.

Take a stand and have A position.

Posted by Eugene | November 14, 2007 8:12 PM

Is this the beginning of some rough times for Hillary? This answer is a total dodge...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by paul | November 14, 2007 8:14 PM

As unpopular as the opinion is Obama doesn't get hurt by this in the primary: first of all if you support giving illegal immigrants free health care as Dodd does then it's not that huge a leap to connect the need for licensed drivers as a public health issue as well.

No doubt Obama is on the wrong side of the issue but he can easily flip this around: as President I set federal laws and my goal is comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders and allows us to know who exactly is living in our country. My goal is a comprehensive immigration bill that recognizes the needs of buisness and the heartache of families that have assimilated while stands for the principle that we are a nation of laws and laws must be enforced. Then he hits the Republicans for blocking Bush's immigration bill which was actually a pretty good piece of legislation all around.

That changes the subject, recognizes he stands on principle and for the states to take the lead and handle the immigration issues as they see fit, and neatly places the blame for a lack of movement on the Republicans.

It's not that hard and if he can't make the leap and square the circle he's really going to deserve any lumps he takes.

Posted by Rhoda | November 14, 2007 8:21 PM

"Welcome to the big leagues" The same big leagues that sent us to the mess in Mesopotamia because back then it was popular. Thank god that at that time Senator Obama took the "hideously unpopular position". Again Hillary as those who are supporting her have tacitly agree with the GOP that this election will be about fear. If we have learn something from this game is that the GOP has always won when it is about fear. In 2002, democrats cave to Bush because Saddam Hussein has WMD and he has something to do with 9/11. In 2004, we cave when George Bush convince the American people that the GOP was the party of values while our candidate couldn't make his mind for what he was for and then against it.
On two of the most important issues of this election, Hillary has ceded the upper hand to the neo-cons or the GOP (Iran and Immigration), but she sure will bring change or turn the heat on the republicans.

Posted by joelle | November 14, 2007 8:28 PM

HWC...he has ALREADY stated his position, and I don't see it hurting him yet. You Clinton people just don't get it.

By the way, Clinton says only that she is "in it to win it."

If you saw Obama's JJ speech, you'll realize that Obama is in it to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.

I am pretty sure we now know who the empty (pant)suit is...

Posted by David | November 14, 2007 8:40 PM

"Take a stand and have A position."

OK. Obama has taken his firm position. He is unequivocably in favor of giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses. We'll see how that unequivocable position plays for him with voters.

The polling is pretty unequivocable on this issue. Wanna place a bet on whether Clinton runs an immigration and drivers license ad in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Posted by hwc | November 14, 2007 9:01 PM

HWC: "The polling is pretty unequivocable..."

Spoken like a TRUE Clinonista.

Leadership isn't about following polls; leadership is about finding solutions.

But you wouldn't understand that, being a Clinton supporter and all...

Posted by David | November 14, 2007 9:20 PM

You don't won a presidential election on character but you loose it on character. I don't know if anyone remember what the medias were saying about Senator Mc Cain campaign. They have already written an obituary of his campaign because he was not running a poll-driven campaign on immigration. He stood his ground and showed his sense of leadership, he is now polling better than Fred Thompson and only Rudy polls better than him in national polls.

Posted by joelle | November 14, 2007 9:26 PM

Does anybody remember what it was John Kerry was for before he was against it?

NO. All that they remember is that he was too chicken sh-t to ever say what he believed.

Kinda like Hillary Clinton.

We live in perilous times; I want someone who is going to lead--someone like JFK, or FDR or Lincoln...and not someone who will just put their finger to the political winds.

After all, isn't that how we ended up in this disastrous war?

Posted by David | November 14, 2007 9:33 PM

Obama is right about the democrats acting like wusses afraid of what the Republicans will say. HRC is just like the rest of Congress, Reid and Pelosi they don't take a stand on anything because they are afraid of losing. Stop being wimps! HRC has already flip flop on her Iraqi vote and Iran vote. Now this, she will say anything and do anything just to win. She has no core beliefs and will sell you and bill down the river just to maintain power. What a sham.

Posted by sonya | November 14, 2007 10:10 PM

What Hillary and her supporters and obtuse pundits do not get is that people will overlook you taking an unpopular position if they think that you generally have principals and integrity...the people agreed with Kerry on the issues in '04....but he still lost because people saw him as unlikable and a flip flopper. Bush was open about the fact that he wanted to *gasp* privatize social security...and he won regardless in '04. So many democrats and so many dimwitted pundits think that electability is just a sum of what positions you take and has nothing to do with the character, steadfastness, andhonesty of the people making them. Making herself into a confirmed flip flopper will cause her far more general election damage than Obama voicing support for a state level initiative in which their is no real federal role. If HIllary is the nominee this issue will have legs and become a defining issue. If Obama is in the news, it will be talked about very little.

Posted by RKA | November 14, 2007 10:56 PM

How is it that the very thing that has created such a successful political system called compromise is being kicked to the curb?

Thompson says no amnesty. Period.

Where is his leadership. In fact when the grand compromise on immigration reform was proposed by politicians on both sides of the isle who showed courage and leadership and crafted a bill that both sides of the issue came together and put aside their difference for the better of the situation and the country many politicians like Thompson hung their colleagues out to dry.

That's not courage Mr. Thompson. And that's certainly not leadership.

This is not a black and white issue. It is very complex and the color is gray. And gray also reflects the mood of our congress and senate's leadership.

http://www.americanharvestmovie.com

Posted by Angelo Mancuso | November 14, 2007 11:05 PM

Rather than just being slightly damaging, this issue could end political careers if the MSM were doing their job. The positions of the top-tier Dems and most of the top-tier Republicans are so weak that a series of questions could reveal the hidden (to most others) downsides of their various plans.

Maybe if Ambinder wants to do some real reporting instead of just being a stenographer he can quiz, for instance, Huck about this issue.

Compare this question for Huck with anything Ambinder's asked of any of the candidates.

Posted by TLB | November 14, 2007 11:47 PM

I don't get it. if she believe it was wrong as a matter of _principle_ then why didn't she say so. I was raised to believe that principles were those things you believed in and stood up for even when they were not popular because you believed they were right. She'll get to the oval office and there will be nothing there left to defend. truly doesn't obama have a point here (on the public safety issue) should we send the statute of liberty back. are we really ready to give up on the image of america as the land of freedom and opportunity. 5 years from now josh marshall will do an expose on how this issue of immigration was used as an issue to divide and to rig yet another election. every time i think i could not vote for hillary i find a new reason not to.

Posted by just another white male voter | November 15, 2007 12:26 AM

As others have pointed out, you don't need to take the more popular position on every single issue to be a successful politician. Indeed, if you counted them up fairly I doubt Reagan was on the more popular side of even the majority of issues.

I'll just add that the notion that immigration is a silver bullet for Republicans is pure fantasy on their part. In fact, they already shot that bullet in 2006 and they still got their clocks cleaned. Which just makes sense: people are not going to vote for the person they think is wrong on the war, wrong on the economy, wrong on the environment, wrong on health care, and on and on, just because that person opposes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Posted by DTM | November 15, 2007 3:57 AM

I think HRC did the right thing. Bush/Big business and the far left support amnesty. But the overwhelming majority Americans and even Dems want some assurance that we can stem the tide of illegal immigration before we grant amnesty or whatever you want to term it.

Posted by BlueDog | November 15, 2007 12:21 PM