And Now Back To The Campaign
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Thursday, November 15 2007, 12:24PM
For the first time since Hillary Clinton lost the veneer of inevitability in her last debate performance last month, the Democratic presidential candidates square off again tonight for a CNN-sponsored debate in Nevada. The polls show that Hillary Clinton still holds a commanding lead in the national race, but her lead in Iowa has narrowed as John Edwards and Barack Obama have inched up in that state. Tonight Clinton will have to prove that her recent stumble was just a one-time gaffe and not a reflection of persistent problems in her campaign.
In contrast, Obama and Edwards have to show that they can build on the momentum they've gained in recent weeks and can go toe-to-toe with Clinton in the long run. It's been an exciting contest to watch the past few weeks. It all started when Clinton seemed to endorse New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give out drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants. Now that Spitzer has withdrawn his plan, Clinton said firmly yesterday that she opposes such efforts. But is it too little too late?
''I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal,'' Clinton said in a statement. ''As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.''
But the Obama camp was quick to fire off a response. ''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,'' said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
It was a clever reply that reminded voters of Clinton's somewhat confusing position on the immigration issue and of the recent news story that Clinton aides had staged a question for her at an Iowa event. The Edwards campaign joined in the critique. "Tonight you are going to see Senator Edwards continue to answer questions openly and honestly. You are also going to see Senator Clinton look confused when she gets a global warming question from Wolf Blitzer instead of a college student," said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray.
Those may not be nice things to say, but that comes with the territory when you run for president. The worst thing for Clinton to do right now is to complain about the criticism, as her campaign seemed to do following the Philadelphia debate last month. The Clinton camp accused her male rivals of "piling on" her and talked about competing in "the all-boys' club of presidential politics," as the New York Times reported.
Then they sent out former president Bill Clinton to complain that the other candidates were "swift boating" his wife, a reference to the 2004 GOP attacks on Senator John Kerry. I don't know who approved that language, but that was a dumb move. Bill Clinton is smart enough not to be played like that, but instead he got dragged into a battle of words with Barack Obama, thus elevating Obama and reducing the Clintons.
Bill Clinton is Hillary Clinton's strongest surrogate and her campaign would be wise to deploy him more judiciously in the future. You don't pull out your big guns in the first battle. You wait until they're really needed. But by playing the gender card, the "swift boat" card and the Bill Clinton card all at once, the Clinton campaign essentially reduced the effectiveness of that message if they should need to use it when things really get rough.
Hillary Clinton's strongest suit is her experience. No one doubts that she's tough enough to be president. If anything, they think she's too tough at times. So there's a certain irony when Clinton tells voters on the campaign stump: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And then she follows up with the most ironic applause line of all: "I feel real comfortable in the kitchen."
Well, tonight we'll see.
Comments conceal
MidwestGuy
November 15 2007, 1:22PM
Keith, I agree w/what you said here. I was pleased w/both Obama's candidate and Edwards' performance at the last debate. I was happy to see the queen FINALLY knocked off her throne.
I don't know how I feel about the illegal drivers license issue as I am sure it's more complex than what the media suggest. But, agree w/Spitzer, then deny you did, then agree again, then totally change course and disagree again in less than a month is too much movement for this voter.
I'm looking forward in seeing what tonights encore performance will bring.
I will correct one thing in your post:
Hillary Clinton's strongest suit is her perceived experience. :)
Kenneth Winfrey
November 15 2007, 2:01PM
I am wondering how the candidates will handle themselves in Nevada. This is the first early primary for Nevada, a state considered quite transient and un-involved when it comes to politics. People just move in and out too frequently to take stands on the issues, which normally developed with a sense of long-term ownership within a community.
I am also curious to see whether Govenor Richardson will be able to take advantage of being on what might be considered turf close to home.
Derrick from Philly
November 15 2007, 2:13PM
Yeah, MidWestGuy: You been waitin' a long time to see a queen get knocked off her thrown. Yeah, well, I'm a queen that's been waitin' to get knocked off too.
I'm tempted to call them The Three Stooges. Two years ago, I had such respect for all three. Now, I can't hardly stand the sight (or sound) of them. Public Television's Jim Lehrer said he thought all these debates were a good thing, that we need to hear the candidates and grill them. Yeah, but they keep sayin' the same shit over and over again. I was a little impressed with Obama last Sunday morning on "Meet the Press", but I think it was more his handsome face than what was coming out of his mouth.
As for Hillary. She aint down. No, suh, she's a tough ol' bitc...lady.
Al Gore coulda' solved all this boring foolishness.
'Course the Republicans all come across like escapees from Bellevue, with sadistic Nurse Guliani turned top psycho leading the pack. Oh, well.
LaRufus
November 15 2007, 2:26PM
Derrick, child, you are crazy funny, but, correct, they are the 3 Stooges, and not as funny or good as the orginal ones were. Hillary trying to have it both ways, and, now she is looking like the robot Mitt, flip flopping for who ever is listening.
Richardson has some good ideas, and, may do well in Nevada with its large Hispanic population.
PoliticalPundit
November 15 2007, 4:20PM
It may be just me; however, I don't recall Sen. Clinton ever saying that she supported Gov. Spitzer's proposal. I do recall her simply saying that it was a good idea.
In addition, I think that it needs to be said that Sen. Clinton was being PC by not answering the question straight out because the question involved a governor from her own party who also happens to be from her "now" home state.
MidwestGuy
November 15 2007, 6:33PM
PoliPun, yes it may just be you. Hillary came out in support of Spitzer's plan in the days following the debate. She, in the debate said it was a good idea, she understood the need, and then denied that she supported it.
Now she's not supporting it once again.
If the citizens of her "new" home state overwhelmingly rejected it, as their representative, I don't see how her disagreeing w/Spitzer was her just being PC as it was her being her usual vague, waffling, triangulating self.
I'm not sure that you've clarified anything to Clinton's benefit.
I think it's a good idea to have laws on the books protecting gays, I just don't support it?
Come on now
cmoney
November 15 2007, 7:45PM
It's amazing to me that anyone running for President of THIS country could support the idea of a legitimate government I.D. for illegal aliens and seriously expect to win. Hillary Clinton looked like a complete idiot when she most certainly gave two different answers to the same question. After looking at the polls, she finally came out against this stupid idea. At least she is finally on the right side of the issue, but her credibility is severely damaged. Obama can pack it up and go home too, so long as he continues to support license for illegals. As for Hillary's experience--Huh? She is the LEAST experienced candidate in the race. She's qualified, but she is not the most experienced by far. Somehow, her hype about experience has deluded even Keith.
Mikey
November 15 2007, 11:36PM
I'm getting tired of hearing about Barack, Hillary, and John. I don't support any of them. I would love to hear more about Kucinich. I find it interesting that Dennis was against the war from the start, never voted for the war, voted against the Patriot Act, has the best Health Care plan, is the ONLY one up there now for gay marriage, ending the War on Drugs, talks about riding the world of nuclear weapons, speaks about peace instead of war, but all Keith and everybody else in the media can talk about are those three. If you go back you can hear Hillary giving loud speeches about being for Iraq and taking out Saddam, but you listen now she says she's no longer voting for War funding. However Dennis has been doing that from the start. Nobody's talking about in the media how Dennis won the Democracy for America poll with 31.97% but if the "top three" won that poll it'd be ALL OVER TV.
FRE
November 16 2007, 1:20AM
As I understand it, a driver's license issued to illegal aliens would be marked so that it could not be used as an official ID and would be valid only for driving.
I discussed this issue a couple years ago with a state senator (New Mexico) who supported it. The problem is that illegal aliens are driving without a license. In many parts of the U.S., including NM, it would be almost impossible to work without being able to drive. If the illegal aliens get licensed, then they can get the legally required insurance. The insurance provides protection to others who may be involved in an accident with an illegal alien. Also, if they are licensed, at least they have been tested and are at least somewhat less likely to become involved in an accident. And, if they are involved in an accident, they will be less likely to run.
Obviously there is not total agreement with this. But, some who oppose it seem more interested in knocking aliens than being practical.
Steve
November 16 2007, 7:44AM
Someone should ask all these candidates how they feel about the fascist treatment of the bridge women.
Vixen
November 16 2007, 2:06PM
Fre if there illegal why should they work here? They dont need to drive....they should be here anywahy and they shouldn't be working....
FRE
November 16 2007, 6:54PM
Vixen,
The fact is that they ARE here and they ARE working here. I recently had a new roof put on my house and I strongly suspect that it was illegal aliens who did the work. Before having the work done, I tried to get 3 bids, but was able to get only 2 bids. Then, because of a labor shortage, I had to wait more then 3 months for the work to be started. It is a fact that in some areas of the country, there is a shortage of workers in some occupations and we are dependent on illegal aliens, whether we like it or not.
In my neighborhood is a condo complex being built and in walking past it, all one hears is Spanish and a radio playing Mexican music. There again, the work could not have proceeded without illegal aliens.
We need to overhaul our immigration policy and make some provision for guest workers. If we don't, our economy will suffer; that's the truth, whether some people like it or not.
montimo
November 22 2007, 12:59AM
FRE, I must agree with you. Since 1986, when I started working with a commercial roofing company in TX, I found that Mexican workers were the only reliable workers that we could find. Do I believe that we should allow illegal immigration to continue unchecked? No. But really, where would we be without their contribution to our work force?
As far as the Democratic candidates, I only pray that they don't drive each other so far into the ground that we end up with another Republican for the next 4 years. My god, I don't think this country can survive another term with the "Religious Right" in control of the White House?
Comment Preview