To recover from this snafu, the day after the debate the Clinton campaign issued a statement saying that she "broadly supports state efforts to license illegals." Senator Clinton also said, “I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do.” An article published by http://www.cnn.com/ the same day states, "Clinton added that the policy of simply giving licenses to illegal immigrants is not something she thinks any governor would seek out." I think that means she is hedging her "clarification".
Shortly after this, under severe criticism within his state and out, Governor Spitzer withdrew his plan of issuing drivers license to illegals, saying something about underestimating opposition to the whole idea.
Now the Clinton campaign has issued a new statement. "I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal. As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people..."
So she tried to finesse taking both sides of the issue in the debate. Then she issued a clarification stating that she did support Governor Spitzer's plan. Now she says she will not support driver's licenses for illegals.
The problem with Hillary Clinton is that we'll never know what she really thinks. She only says what she believes is politically expedient. For Hillary Clinton, it is not about having positions guided by principle. It is about saying what will get her elected.
Contrast this with President Bush. Love him or hate him, he certainly is not running his administration based on polling data. He is doing what he believes is right, regardless of the poll numbers.
President Clinton's administration was driven by polls and focus groups. Almost every word, phrase and nuance was the product of focus group testing. It was not so much governing as it was a non-stop campaign.
Mike Luckovick, the political cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, had his take on the Clinton's obsession with focus group testing over principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment