no love

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Clinton Gets No Love in Democrats Debate
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer


PHILADELPHIA ? In the City of Brotherly Love, there wasn't much for a sister.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's rivals ganged up on her during a two-hour Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, putting the front-runner on defense on issues ranging from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and whether she would be electable in the general election.

Gone was the Clinton who laughed off their answers and joked about how she's lucky to be getting so much attention from all these men at her age. Clinton clearly had decided she must defend herself from rivals who are right on her heels in the leadoff voting state of Iowa and who pose a real threat to her winning the Democratic nomination.

Still, she continued her strategy of avoiding direct answers to questions: She wouldn't say how she would address Social Security; she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or say whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Instead she tried to tried to turn every issue into an argument against President Bush. She said Bush's name 25 times, more than all six of her rivals combined.

 

[Chadman]

It's no surprise that this is going on. She's clearly the front-runner, and the others realize they need to put a dent in her to have a real chance at gaining the nomination. And from her perspective, she has the most to lose, and needs to be the most guarded at this stage - and attacking Bush is a part of the bigger picture, which she should be entertaining at this point.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree -smart move Chad--but believe people deserve to know where one stands on important issues before they have to choose candidate.

Classic case of no solution--just complaints about the guy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
I see now she has made decision on one point--
shes for drivers licenses for illegals now--how's that grab ya--and re,member she's against ID's for voters

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/a-day-later-clinton-embraces-spitzers-license-effort/
--A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer?s effort to award New York driver?s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from a what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.

 

[Chadman]

I agree -smart move Chad--but believe people deserve to know where one stands on important issues before they have to choose candidate.

Classic case of no solution--just complaints about the guy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
I see now she has made decision on one point--
shes for drivers licenses for illegals now--how's that grab ya--and re,member she's against ID's for voters

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/a-day-later-clinton-embraces-spitzers-license-effort/
--A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer?s effort to award New York driver?s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from a what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.

Well, I certainly won't allow that she has no solutions to the problems that face our country, but I personally think she is wrong on both stances. She did explain - quite understandably - that Spitzer was trying to tackle a tough problem and come up with solutions, and she supported him in that, not necessarily specifically the issuance of licenses. She posed the question, "What would YOU propose we do about the situation?" She said she would have to look at it further...some sense in trying to get illegals to come forward and be identified, but Dodd certainly hit the nail on the head (for me) with his driving is a privilege theme, and not a right. I think this is an area that will require some give and take, and some are trying things out.

I know what you mean, we all should know where people stand before we vote. But she certainly has the most to lose by being pinpointedly specific on some tough situations that only allow for a barrage of attacks from all comers - and an issue that both parties have been moving targets on in many cases, and can not agree on.

And complaints on the guy are warranted, for most. She should go after Bush, if she wants the nomination - and he is a supporter of many forms of illegal immigration help.