home

The Gotcha Moment?

Last night's debate was a bad night for Hillary's opponents, and especially for my candidate Chris Dodd. Let's take a look at the so- called "highlight" for the attacks on Hillary, the licenses for illegal immigration moment (the so called double talk moment):

RUSSERT: 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.

How in the world is this a problematic answer? It seems correct in every particular to me. What progressive Democrat could disagree with this? Why, my candidate, Chris Dodd, shame on him:

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.

What a load of crap. The purpose for giving them the chance to to earn the privilege is to document them as drivers and to insure that they are INSURED drivers; that their driving skills are up to par. That they will not be hit and run drivers. It is good PUBLIC POLICY. This is not about handing out Christmas trees. What ion the heck is Dodd talking about? Is Dodd trying to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment with this? Because as public policy, his answer is nonsensical. Oh but what of the so called double talk?

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.

Doubletalk? Certainly. But in the end, the problem is recognized and the complexity of the problem Spitzer faces is recognized. Dodd's answer is pure drivel.

But what do the other doubletalking pols have to say about THE ISSUE? Edwards jumps in, but to talk about the issue? Of course NOT. It is to attack Clinton:

MR. EDWARDS: . . . I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago, and I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight.

Edwards just proceeded to say NOTHING on the issue. Excuse me, America is not looking for a gotcha President. At the least, Dodd took a position and argued the merits of the position with Clinton.

Edwards offered nothing but cheap hucksterism. Straight talk my eye. Edwards proved to be as phony as a three dollar bill. Where do you stand on the issue Senator Edwards? You did a great Tim Russert imitation but showed no qualitiies I want to see in a President.

And what did Obama, weak all night, have to say?

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.

Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country, and that's what I intend to do as president.

What about the issue, Senator Obama?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you for it or against it? SEN. OBAMA: I think that it is a -- 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. That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

Good answer. Not sure I see the difference on substance with Clinton but, certainly a straight answer.

Advantage Obama here. Dodd took a position. Clinton doubletalked. Edwards did not even state his position, just attacked.

Loser? John Edwards.

< Judge Stands Up to Federal Prosecutors | Jay Rockefeller's Contempt For The Rule Of Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Are you talking substance or political optics? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    In terms of substance, I agree generally with your take.

    In terms of political optics, Hillary gave an awful answer.  When people have been pounding on this idea of you being a double-talker, the worst thing you can do is double-talk.

    She got caught between primary and general mode, and wound up hurting herself in both.

    On the politics (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    I think Obama did best in this scrum. He also did best substantively.

    On the political optics last night, the big loser was EDWARDS. As we were discussing last night, I did not expect Edwards to be Obama's attack dog on Hillary and yet that is exactly what he did.

    Nonetheless, Obama was weak overall and needs to contrast on ISSUES. Edwards' critique on Iran was much more effective than Obama's.

    He is not good at it.

    the funny thing is Edwards sucked so bad in the debate with Cheney in 2004 and generally in that campaign.

    I will say this, Obama gained with me last night.

    Edwards lost big with me last night.

    Parent

    In Obama's opening lines, when he (none / 0) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    talked about the nominee needing to be able to draw clear policy contrasts with the Republicans, I thought of you.

    I don't think it's plausible that for Obama to draw clear contrasts on the issues with Clinton while she refuses to take clear stands on the issues.

    Parent

    Sure he can (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    by FIRST drawing his contrasts on issues and THEN challenging her to be clear.

    The way he did it on the license issue was backwards. He should state his view first and THEN challenge her.

    Edwards did the challenge and said NOTHIGN on the issue.

    Parent

    The problem is that if he stakes out the ground (none / 0) (#21)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    she'll just obfuscate more.  She'll calibrate her response to sound like she's committed to the most popular aspects of his position.

    I agree that clarity combined with challenging her evasion is the best 1-2 combo.  We saw that in a couple of places--the immigration thing and also the transparency/archives issue.  He's built up a very strong record on transparency/disclosure issues, so he could really zap her on that one.

    Parent

    Obama didn't state his view until asked (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mark Adams on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    he came out attacking too, following Edwards' lead (as usual) but unlike Edwards, Barack was asked the follow-up.  Give. Me. A. Break.  Criticize the format, the questioners, but don't fault someone for not answering something that wasn't asked.  That's stupid.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    Read the freaking transcript.

    Russert SPECIFICALLY asked for views on the issue.

    Edwards, in fact, chose to NOT answer the question he was asked, he took a DIFFERENT question to ATTACK Hillary. He could have responded to Russert's query on the issue and chose not to.

    He waited util the next question he was asked for the sole purpose of attackig Hillary and STILL not saying a darn thing on the issue.

    You give me a freaking break.

    Parent

    Ooo, ya got me (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mark Adams on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    well done.  You too can be a "gotcha" presidential debater.

    And believe me, I'd not only vote for you Big guy, I'd give ya money too. ;-)

    Parent

    Okay, took you advice (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mark Adams on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    I WATCHED the interactive transcript matched with the video at the NY Times.  (very cool BTW)  Russert the question of all the candidates -- there was a show of hands -- ONLY Dodd raised his hand.

    The question was asked, and ANSWERED.  Edwards did not agree with Dodd (He should have, IMO) and proceeded to draw a distinction with Hillary despite her being "supportive," but not "for" the license plan.  

    But I'd still vote for BTD ahead of any of them!

    Parent

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#29)
    by DA in LA on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:44:43 PM EST
    Obama dropped big with me, as did Clinton.

    Edwards gained.

    Dodd gained.  Biden gained (I'd never vote for him, but he can debate.)

    The rest I feel the same about.

    Parent

    on substance (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    I think there is one main difference between what Hillary and Obama said.  In the end she came back and hedged, saying she wasn't for giving undocumented DL's(or that she was against it).  Her answer would have been perfect had she not come back with that response. So substantively there is a difference, she hedged he didn't.
    The reason I think they were right to go after her for it, is because it was a perfect example of what they are trying to paint as her flaw: that that she will cave to the whims of opinion polls, and not show leadership. It seemed she said what she felt in the beginning, and then came back and said "well hold off on interpreting it as a strong statement, i need to check with my pollster."


    Parent
    Don't Count It Against Dodd (3.00 / 1) (#3)
    by po on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    Dodd was right.  Hillary was . . . not really sure what she was or where she stands.  Yes, the feds need to fix immigration.  Yes, the states (especially NY and other magnet states) are bearing the brunt of the feds inaction (done at the request and with the expectation of many constituents who would not publicly admit such things).  Yes, the whole immigration issue is a bloody minefield.  But, no, the way to solve the problem, or even advance the debate, is not to offer a privilege to those who, as a matter of right, should not be in the state in the first place.  

    Dodd for President.  

    Dodd is right why? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:08:24 AM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 08:54:20 AM EST
    The reality is most people do not favor giving DL's to illegal immigrants and this will come back as a talking point against Hillary unless she changes her postion.

    Lets not even argue the realities lets talk politics.   This was a political mistep.   She will be hammered on this in the general election.

    I also find it humurous that you're arguing agaisnt gotchaism which is a standard democratic tactic against Bush and any politician for that matter.


    I can see the attack ad now (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton says George Bush has failed...

    Can we afford to elect someone capable of ackowledging George Bush failed?

    Just say no to reality ...

    Paid for by lunatic fringe for _, not associated with the __ campaign.



    Parent
    Uh wrong, Shown the Light Molly. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    The vast majority of US citizens do now want illegal aliens to have a driver's license.

    They want the border closed, shut, screwed down.

    While this issue, and her waffling back and forth answer, is probably not enough to cost her a "Blue State," it will cost her dearly in any effort to carry any new states.

    And with polls showing her at 48% against almost any Repub she will need two or three of them.

    Parent

    The vast majority of Americans... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    did not want to wage war in Iraq, but the defense industry did, so we went to war in Iraq.

    I agree the vast majority of Americans don't want to give licenses to undocumented immigrants, but the insurance industry does on the hope they will buy insurance, so the immigrants are gonna get licenses.

    Parent

    Humor impaired this AM Jim? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    Aside from the fact her answer is hardly the stuff attack ads are made of, I suppose we will see what force is greater, Hispanic voters (whose percentage has gone up) or people who are being manipulated by the politics of hate. My guess is there are not enough people who care so deeply about immigration policy to help the GOP and they learn nationally what Pete Wilson learned in California a decade ago.

    Parent
    Shown the light Molly opines (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:00:46 PM EST
     
    My guess is there are not enough people

    Guess? Yes you do.

    Think back to immigration amnesty (reform) bill that  got shut down.

    Parent

    You got it right this time (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    This time it was an opinion.  Last time I was reporting a fact- but you didn't seem to understand the difference. Its possible you have learned to distinguish between the two- then again you had a 50/50 chance to get it right.

    Parent
    Well, what WAS Hillary's answer? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lora on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 08:54:36 AM EST
    Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth.  She's so careful to appeal to everyone she doesn't want to take a stand and have that stand scrutinized in the spotlight.

    At least Dodd took a stand:

    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.

    That is not drivel.  He thinks extending driver's licenses goes too far, seeing driver's licenses as a privilege and health care as a right.

    It took Russert asking several times to get Hillary's stand on the issue, and finally:

    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.

    Well, that's the closest to a direct answer Hillary's capable of coming.  Plenty of wiggle room.  She almost, but not quite, says doesn't support his plan.  Sorry but I agree with Edward.  Let's get a straight answer, please.  Yes, his was "just" an attack but it was a valid one.

    Props to Dodd.  Not wanting to give out driver's licenses to undocumented drivers is not drivel.  Let's give 'em out to underaged teen drivers and those who've had their license suspended for DUI while we're at it.  After all, we know they're on the road driving, and some of them are probably driving to and from work, or driving for their jobs.  It's a public health issue, after all.  Sorry, no.  It's a lot more complex than that.  

    Definitely doubletalk (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    But in the end, she supports Spitzer.

    BTW, Spitzer gutted his own plan.

    It is not the answer. His original proposal is the answer until congress acts.

    Parent

    I've missed every debate (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    Years ago someone in California tried to pass a state proposition to create a tax on gasoline (I think it would be 25 cents) that would give every driver in the state a no-fault basic car insurance policy. In addition to giving everyone (legal, illegal, insured, uninsured) the basics, the quarter tax would depress gas usage slightly. Everyone hated the idea. Too bad.

    Oh, sorry, we're not here to solve any problems, are we?

    The reason it failed (none / 0) (#20)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    is that it treated everyone as equals in terms of their driving ability and safety. If a person is in multiple accidents and has multiple driving violations then he/she will pay the exact same in insurance than the person who drivers more carefully.

    Parent
    Dodd quietly helping Bush screw minorities... (none / 0) (#13)
    by jhow on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    Presidential hopeful Chris Dodd, Chairman of Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, is making the remarkable move of closing down a Federal program that has historically helped hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged groups and the poor achieve first time homeownership.

    Dodd is siding with Senate Republicans (like Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL no less) to give a slap in the face to minorities across the country. Dodd is supporting Bush's HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson in his move to eliminate downpayment assistance programs. According to the GAO, the move to get rid of downpayment assistance programs will bar approximately 40% of African-American homebuyers from utilizing Federal Housing Administration insured loans. Also affected are potentially 30% of Latinos.

    While I appreciate the work Senator Dodd has done in regards to working to restore habeas corpus rights and stopping telecom companies from having complete amnesty for their crimes...right needs to be told he will lose all effective support he has from the blogosphere if this program is shut down! What Senator Dodd is doing will screw the poor, minorities, and many single parent mothers from ever owning a home. True progressives Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Barney Frank have showed their leadership in securing a bill in the House to protect this program. In the Senate, Senator Dodd holds the keys. Sign this petition and call Senator Dodd now. For more information on this issue, see below.
    http://www.gopetition.com/online/14912.html

    Downpayment assistance programs allow nonprofits to assist home buyers in providing the minimum down payment required for Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loans. Shutting down this program will effectively destroy the nonprofits seeking to help first time home buyers achieve their dreams of home ownership. From 2000 through 2006, more than 650,000 buyers got their down payments through nonprofits. HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson believes with the recent foreclosures occurring because of subprime loans, an increased number of borrowers will seek downpayment assistance and place enormous fiscal stress on the FHA. However, Secretary Jackson is overlooking the fact that if downpayment assistance programs are shut out, even more borrowers will be FORCED into predatory loan agreements and subprime loans. The reality is, downpayment assistance programs are needed more than ever now, and to remove the program is to put families onto the street and to keep an entire segment of the population continually renting from landlords.

    According to GAO study published earlier this year, the imposition of risk-based pricing will bar approximately 40% of African-American homebuyers from utilizing FHA and potentially 30% of Latinos.

    Many other disadvantaged groups and the poor will be severely affected. How will these people ever qualify for home mortgages? Will they ever own their own assets? Will they ever build their own wealth? If the government intends for people to stay indebted to landlords and housed in apartment buildings, how can we expect minorities to build their own businesses and raise their children in healthy self-sustaining communities?

    Right now, the House of Representatives passed a bill to prevent HUD from closing this program. The bipartisan support of Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Gary Miller made this effort possible. However, in the Senate, the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is apparently siding with HUD to shut down downpayment assistance. We must act now!
    Petition:
    This petition urges the Senate to follow the bold leadership in the House. Do not shut down this program to help Americans achieve first time home ownership. Help ALL Americans reach the American dream.

    Write or Call Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Dodd to tell him:

    "Please do not shut down the downpayment assistance program. This program helps hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged families across the country achieve the American dream of homeownership."

    Banking Committee Contact:
    534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    P: (202) 224-7391
    F: (202) 224-5137

    U.S. Senator Chris Dodd Contact:
    448 Russell Building | Washington D.C., 20510
    Tel: (202) 224-2823 | Fax: (202) 224-1083

    On the substance I agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    but Hillary was made to seem flip-floppy. It made her excellent performance just good overall. Not enough to kill her, though--not even close.

    well, at least Dodd voted against (none / 0) (#18)
    by robrecht on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    the last Iraq war supplemental ... Oh, wait!

    Yes, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    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. [...]

    How in the world is this a problematic answer?

    because giving illegal aliens a DL means they won't have accidents that harm themselves or others. Profound logic.

    Indeed, (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    What a load of crap. The purpose for giving them the chance to to earn the privilege is to document them as drivers and to insure that they are INSURED drivers; that their driving skills are up to par. That they will not be hit and run drivers.
    because having a DL insures [sic] that they are insured drivers. Because you need a DL to get auto insurance. Because having a DL insures [sic] that their - or anyone's - driving skills are up to par. That having a DL insures [sic] that they won't be a hit and run driver.

    Talk about a load of crap.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#30)
    by DA in LA on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    Giving them DL's does what?  Not much.  Does it force them to buy insurance, because that is what we are talking about.  Does it make them accountable?  No.  So what is the deal with DL's?

    I don't see how Dodd's answer is that far off, sorry.

    Parent