After two weeks, can Clinton stop the slide?

Hillary Clinton, who was both for and against giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants two weeks ago, came out against them again last night. Her latest decision came on the same day that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer met in Washington with his state's congressional delegation (minus Clinton) and announced that he was abandoning his controversial plan to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.

"As president," the senator said, "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."

This was likely a vain attempt to take the volatile license issue off the discussion table heading into tonight's 5 p.m. Pacific CNN debate in Nevada, where her opponents -- primarily Barack Obama and John Edwards -- must continue to chip away at her standing. According to a new CNN poll, she holds a 51% to 23% to 11% edge over Obama and Edwards in Nevada. The Times' Scott Martelle examines campaigning for that state's caucuses here on this website and in Thursday's print editions.

Two weeks ago in the last Democratic debate, Clinton was doing her usual steady job as the front-runner until the last few minutes, when she stumbled over two issues -- her support for/opposition to the driver's licenses and whether she would open her first lady document files, which she says provided the experience that qualifies her to be president but won't allow anyone to see.

Moderator Tim Russert first asked her if giving licenses to illegals made a lot of sense, and ....

Clinton appeared to endorse the idea, explaining Spitzer's thinking and blaming the Bush administration for a lack of comprehensive immigration reform.

Then, when Chris Dodd said he opposed the plan, Clinton needlessly interjected, "I just want to add I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do ..."

Russert then sought to clarify: "I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"

Clinton: "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

O.K., now do you understand her position?

Her opponents didn't either, and pounced on classic Clinton wanting it both ways. The next day her campaign manager in a fundraising appeal sought to portray it as six guys "piling on." Clinton then told the women at her alma mater that her schooling there prepared her to play in the all-boys president's club. And then Bill Clinton weighed in, suggesting the criticism equaled the Swift boat smearing of John Kerry.

Then a 19-year-old Iowa college sophomore innocently revealed she'd been given a planted question to ask at a Clinton forum in Iowa (video of the planted question here; a longer interview video of the student here). And the Clinton campaign had to admit to the rigging.

So it's been a tough two weeks off-message for the senator. And it's shown in the polls, with Clinton's once mammoth lead dwindling like a Slim-Fast diet, despite her fat bank account and bounteous endorsements.

So, tonight is a big opportunity for Clinton to regain her momentum or for Obama and Edwards to throw her further off-stride in the last seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

Indications are they won't go easy on her. After Clinton's Wednesday statement on licenses, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, said, "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."

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Aa]

I read this from news article today with great interest. It reads; "The good news for Hillary is that it shouldn't be too difficult. For starters, it wasn't the other candidates who caused her problems last time; it was Tim Russert. Wolf Blitzer asks questions differently." This is a pre analysis of the debate today. This article seems to suggest that Wolf Biltzer has been bribed or planted again to make it very easy for Sen. Clinton to come out of her display of stupidity during the last debate.

This strategy may work well because Sen. Clinton as many may have know by now, she is not as smart as she would like you to believe. She is not an original thinker. Of course, many people are not. People who do not originate their own ideas are gifted in using other people's ideas. She has to know the questions before answering them. With Wolf Blitzer asking qestions, she knows what questions will be asked. I am sure she will do well tonight. But the question still remains, is Hillary really qualified or a better candidate? I do not think so....

[Ed Weirdness]

Asserting that "comprehensive immigration reform" would solve the problem is meaningless. We could make all our crime problems go away simply by changing the laws so that these "criminal acts" are no longer criminal acts. This is hardly the solution that America's Citizens are demanding. It's frustrating and outrageous that politicians continue to baet the "comprehensive reform" drum, when they all know that we, the people will not support any policies that add to the overpopulation, tax, crime, education, health care, jobs, social and cultural problems we already have. Indeed, there is no problem confronting America's Citizens that would not see dramatic improvement from securing our borders, enforcing our existing immigration laws, and stabilizing our population growth. There is no scenario I can concieve whereby "more people, chasing fewer resources" would be responsible, acceptable economic, social or cultural policy. Comprehensive immigration reform didn't fail because politicians didn't work hard to pass it, it failed because we, the people, opposed it. In a nutshell, the Citizens of this nation would not tolerate politicians, the chamber of commerce and the cheap labor interests usurping our will, compromising our economy, or jeopardizing our social and cultural interests any longer.The sooner politicians accept that they work for us, the sooner we can set about righting whats wrong with our government.

[RuthieM]

Recover? Recover from what? Yous don't want to admit this or acknowledge this but Clinton has been consistent on her inconsistencies from the very first debate it's just that finally she met her match in the moderator, Russert, who held her feet to the fire in not excusing her unanswers. And if you look at that last debate it wasn't just the immigration question she stumbled on, it was practically all of them, as usual. And it's not about Obama and Edwards 'going on the attack'. First of all yous need to stop glopping Obama and Edwards in the same breath, as you only do this to try to diminish Obama, and secondly, I don't believe Obama goes into these debates with this 'attack' mindset that all yous want to hype. Obama is standing heads and shoulders literally and figuratively above all the candidates and he is the only one capable of leading our America!