There is obviously a willful refusal here to confront Hillary Clinton's very high negatives many of which are based upon her past conduct which will be easily exploitable by the Republicans. The "attacks" on her by the other Democrats thus far are quite  benign compared to what she will face if she wins the nomination.

  That these relatively gentle attacks on her character and credibility have thus far had relatively little impact on her numbers among likely voters in the Democratic nomination process should not be used to promote the assumption that the much more virulent attacks which the Republicans will use against her will not have a far greater impact upon people who vote in the general election.

  Ultimately, the general election will be decided on the basis of whom is disliked and distrusted the least by the people not beholden to either of the Parties or any of the candidates.

Who said that undocumented aliens are a special interest?  I don't see it in the story.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton does not provide the most straightforward answers.

This means, for all her rhetoric, we DON'T really know where she stands on issues.

Immigration is a huge can of worms, no doubt.  And as a nation of mostly immigrants, we should do a lot better.  

That said, Dodd explained, as any law student knows, that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right.  Granting privileges to those, who by any current definition of the law, should not be in this country, is contrary to logic and the law.

After a month or so, the media starts calling it "toughening their candidate up"  "prepping the anticipated nominee for a tough no holds barred offense from the republican".

Why is this any different than any primary in the last 50 years?

Instead of counterpunching, Clinton chose to play rope-a-dope, perhaps hoping to evoke sympathy, and wound up tripping over her mangled response to the question about giving driver licenses for illegal aliens.

While they are all guilty of pandering and equivocating--Hillary is the worst.  It's so baldly obvious to any normal person.  

But I do think she has good debating skills and can deflect the attacks on her.  The only reason I have any sympathy for her is that the media hates her (e.g. Timmy Russert and Mo Dowd) and the Republicans effectively defamed her in the 90s.  Other than that her politics and her lack of any real principal beliefs is terrible.  

I don't support Clinton, but..

They have to be careful, they don't want to come venture into Rick-Lazzo-fist-shaking territory.

Also, in the odd chance you missed the subliminal attacks, notice how the Terrorbuplicans never refer to her as Senator Clinton, they always say Mrs. Clinton.  You have access to westlaw & Lexis, check it out.

As a fellow Clark supporter, you may remember about this time four years ago, when Gore endorsed Dean, everyone said the race was over. Sound familiar. In fact a day or two later, Ted Koppel hosted a debate, and in a boorish and petulant manner asked only "the race is over" questions.  Subsequently, the whole bunch started pounding Dean (they had been reluctant because they didn't want to alienate his mailing list).  That was early December.  Perhaps with IA moving up their date, attacking the frontrunner season has also been moved up.

I've stated a long time ago, I don't favor any of the candidates, though I was impressed with Dodd until Sunday.  But I'm curious as to why you're so soft on Clinton.  Is it out of deference to Jeralyn? Are you on Peter Daou's payroll (one never knows)?