Editorial: Why Hillary just lost herself the presidency

Hillary Clinton will not win the presidency in 2008.  That still might not prevent her from winning the Democratic nomination, although voters from her party would be smart to find another candidate to head their ticket.

During Tuesday's Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton committed political suicide by not only endorsing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and not only changing her mind the next minute, but by changing her mind yet again the very next day.  Immigration just so happens to be the number one political issue in every Midwestern swing state.  Even more significantly, Hillary's inability to take a stand begs the question: does she actually have a clear opinion on anything?

Don't believe me?  Take a look at this debate transcript:

MR. 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?      

SEN. CLINTON:  Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do isfill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bringabout comprehensive immigration reform.  We know in New York we haveseveral million at any one time who are in New York illegally.  Theyare undocumented workers.  They are driving on our roads.  Thepossibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or othersis just a matter of the odds.  It's probability.  So what GovernorSpitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reformbecause no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

OK, so for the record, Hillary Clinton believed it made sense to offer illegal immigrants drivers licenses.

Just moments later, Clinton tried to deny it, and Chris Dodd called her on it:

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)?

So, then at the end of the debate, Hillary Clinton left us with the impression that she didn't support it.

Guess what happened next!  The very next day, as explained on by Chris Matthews on Wednesday's Hardball, Hillary's campaign released a statement saying she now supports allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses after all.

Forget the issue for a minute -- regardless of whether or not you support the idea.  The point is we don't even know where Hillary Clinton stands.  Do you really think Republican strategists will just sit around and not exploit Clinton's inability to take a stand on this or any other issue?  This was John Kerry's problem -- except this time it is worse because of how bad her moment was on Tuesday.

If Democrats do not want a Republican back in the White House, they should look elsewhere for their nominee.

Comments

[Tyler B]

If only it was more pronounced, She'll spin it and say she mispoke or something, I doubt this is a true implosion of the HRC Machine...As nice as that would be...

[George]

Nice summary.

Rumor has it she is also "copying" all of Obama's votes these days.

[kevin bracken]

"It makes sense" is hardly a normative phrase; she didn't say it should be done everywhere, or that it ought to take place nationally, just that Spitzer's plan was reasonable. I don't really see this as the smoking gun that many observers are calling it.

[kenoshaMarge]

As explained by Chris Matthews the guy who wrote the Hillary Haters handbook? Good lord, how could anyone, anywhere take anything that Matthews says seriously? The guy that thinks George Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore? The guy that touts Rudy Giuliani every chance he gets? The guy that thinks Fred Thompson would make a great "older brother" candidate. Surely you can do better than this. Even rampant Hillary Hatred is no excuse for an attack this sloppy. (By the way, I am a John Edwards supporter, I just don't like people that distort facts.)

[Robert]

She is not Bill. I think people think they want Bill again. With Bill in her corner and out campaigning with her he brings in most of those votes. Without Bill she would not be a real contender. I am a New Yorker and I have no problem with her being a Senator for New York. She has helped one of my friends keep his job by using her political power to keep the company from moving south. But I do not want to see Hillary in the White House again. I am glad that the canidates went after her and tried to point our flaws. I don't want this to get ugly but I would also like to see canidates point out flaws in policy and previous actions that might lead to poor leadership in the White House. I don't think anyone should feel bad for Hillary for the other canidates questioning her actions. Everyone else in the job can be questions by their actions if what they do turns out poorly.
John Edwards I believe is the real deal and I will do what I can for him in New York. its very upseting for me to see a future with a party with no clear direction or plan. If someone knows what the goals are. And I mean real achiveable goals. Let me know. Universal health care is not a clear goal. Health care for poor children is. health care for families who have health care already is not smart. please feed back would be greatly apreciated

[Krista]

I agree that Republicans will use this kind of "flip-flop" to nail her in the general. I also agree that it is a relatively minor oops that really doesn't mean anything . . . she refused to take a concrete stand more than she flipped and flopped. Something the Republicans can and will skewer her on, too.

The problem isn't just the debate's mistake - the problem is that Hillary provides too much ammo for the Republicans. They don't need a real, meaty example of indecisiveness on her part - the public is too inclined not to like her anyway so any unkind story will stick.

In an alternate universe could she be a great president? Yes. Will she get elected in this universe? I don't think so.

http://camperky.typepad.com

[Kerri Deal]

Hillary is still my choice for president.She can not state "Grow up! They are here illegally.Get legal then we will discuss this".Why dont you answer the question ,Should we give them a drivers liscense? Why not pick a subject that truely needs addressed? Global warming?alternate energy?The war on terrorism,How about Healthcare for children?The economy?This speaks for its self.

[Robert]

I do not think she has reasonable answers for questions that are important. In a perfect world yea all her proposals would work great. she has to come out with plans that could be economiclly acceptable. I know there have been many post about Edwards plans the fact he could answer questions honestly and in as much detail as he could. I do no think Hillary has any set plans and ways to implement these plans. Liscensing is a state matter and many of us who voted for Spitzer really don't understand what he is doing. Check out info about him. He came with like this congress. He was on a wave and faultered and has allowed all his political clout to fall to the wayside. And now so many people, upstate, are looking for real reason why Spitzer is not willing to compromise at all on anything. I agree with Todd that Hillary as the canidate for the party will bring another republican victory. Not because she is a woman but because she isn't the best qualified canidate.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Kerri, to be quite Frank, I don't know of one clear position she has on anything -- the war, energy independence, Social Security, health care.

[NONI]

Hillary is the Republican's candidate for the election. I just don't want another Republican in the White House. Clinton was the best Republican we ever had in there, but this country has gone so far right, Hillary's centrist stand is Republican. I happen to like the Democratic Party Platform. I'm glad Edwards is running on it. Smart man. So was Gore. Remember they won.

[justa cook]

Read the transcript. Russert asked if it made sense. Clinton replied that she understood the rationale. Never said she agreed with it. Don't think it matters a whit either way. Unless we reform the voting process, we'll NEVER have an honest election in Amerika.

[Brett]

"It makes a lot of sense" can be construed as a statement in support of something, such as "I think it makes a lot of sense for us to invade Iraq." If someone who said that before the war was now opposed to the continuation of the war, they would be rightfully attacked for their hypocrisy. I don't think you can turn around and say "I do not think it should be done, though" after making that sort of statement.

Still, I don't think that this will harm her politically, considering that the word choice of her statement with the Nashua newspaper was so deliberately chosen to avoid a specific committment. Also, apart from that "No, I didn't" gaffe, she defended herself pretty well in the debate. But that's part of the problem; she is so slick when it comes to these things that it makes her seem like a machine spewing talking points and not a thinking, reflective human being. That could be an easy label for the Republicans to put on Hillary.

[tom baker]

great job of oversimplifying the issue by a power of 10 or two. cripes, people - the critique reads like a Righty wrote it.

for a bluestate outfit, you're doing a heckuva job of using redstate righty analytical techniques.

if you don't like hillary, fine. i don't either. she'd still be worlds better than any R, which is what urgently matters now.

insisting on 100% certainty and consistency on very complex issues is a Righty trait. try looking for rational explanations, rather than raw material for attack and suspicion-casting (also Righty traits, btw)

reserve all your indignation for Righty. their sins are cardinal, whereas hillary's are merely venial.

we don't need more matthews and russerts - stop blogging like them!

[smchris]

George and NONI are right of course. You can see someone's rationale without agreeing with it. But that's nuance and TV doesn't do nuance. In the same way that Al Gore "invented the internet" this issue most likely will be misstated again and again by the media. The irony is that I agree that the Democrats have let their handlers tell them not to ever express a succinct ideal without first looking at a poll -- but her debate statement here wasn't an exceptional instance of that behavior.

Her decision the next day was "interesting" though. Wonder how they spreadsheeted the relative effects.

[TG]

This is stupid - she did not contradict herself, not at all - it seems like people have a lot to learn about language and debate.
She said it "made sense"; this is not the same thing as saying you support it, not AT ALL. Chris Dodd was incorrect.
The statement the next day saying that she did support it, merely tells you that she thought about it and decided that it both "made sense" AND warranted her personal support.
Don't compound the MSM's idiocy by inflating non-issues like this - headlines like this may cost her points (even though she's not my pick....)
cheers

[Will]

So, for a Democrat, what looks like a flip-flop, a nuance, is political suicide, huh? So what's the alternative, Mr. Todd? Four more years of Rethug and MSM dysflexia? torture? The end of Constitutional government and war without end?

So much for the real universe. In my universe, I'd like to know who's going to prosecute the broad clutch of current neocon war criminals.

[morton weiss]

Are you Hilary haters Repugs or just their flunkys.Why are you nit picking her every word,you don't do this for any other candidate.If you don't vote for the Dem nominie,who ever they happen to be,then you have to be brain dead to give the disastrous Repugs another swipe at destoying this country

[MarkH]

I think other candidates would be more difficult to beat if they were in the front-runner position. But, candidates like Dodd and Biden (who have tremendous experience and coherent policies) don't get the campaign money or press and never get challenged this way either.

I think Obama has shown himself to be too green by making small, but important, mistakes every few days. So, there's another one who has charisma and lots of campaign money, but really doesn't have the qualities that are necessary.

Oh, if only the better candidates ALSO got the biggest amount of campaign money. But, instead, what we get are the candidates Big Money thinks they can work with getting all the big campaign money.

I support Edwards. He's got enough personal appeal and his ideas are very good AND he has enough campaign money to manage. He's raised more money this time than any candidate did in the 2004 campaign. He should be challenged on the issues to see if he's got the right combination of all the things necessary for a modern-day presidential candidate to succeed, both in the primary campaign and for the general election.

Challenge Edwards! See if he's got the Right Stuff.

[OH]

Hillary would be the perfect candidate for the concession speech and pledge to reach across the aisle to Giuliani in the spirit of Bipartisanship.