On being for and against the Spitzer license plan

Blake Dvorak:

It is hard to exaggerate the reaction in the media and among presidential contenders to Hillary Clinton's debate gaffe Tuesday night. Everyone, it seems, has been waiting since about the time Barack Obama joined the race (in January) for something, anything, to jolt the stagnant Democratic field. Everyone of course, except Hillary Clinton.

So kudos to Chris Dodd, who in the final 10 minutes of a two-hour debate was paying enough attention to raise his hand as the sole opponent of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. By doing so, Dodd kept the issue going much longer than the allotted 30-seconds, and he kept Clinton talking.

Which was important, because it was Clinton, not Dodd, or John Edwards, or Barack Obama, who called herself out on her own obfuscation. While Dodd was talking, Clinton interrupted to correct him on his point that she supported Spitzer's plan. She didn't, she said.

Finally, like a clap of thunder during the so-called "lightning round," there it was: something new. Moderator Tim Russert, who until that moment appeared content to let Clinton get away with her peevish first answer, pounced like a good journalist. And so, before a bored audience knew what had happened, there was suddenly life in the Democratic presidential race.

But let's not get too caught up in the hype, much of which can be explained by the simple fact that Clinton's answer has been the only somewhat consequential thing to happen in this race in a while. Nevertheless, the excitement coming from the Edwards and Obama camps following the debate is justified, if only because it's Clinton's first big mistake.

More significant, however, is what the gaffe has revealed about Clinton and her campaign. Following Russert's second attempt at an answer, Clinton appeared visibly annoyed and began by talking about "gotcha politics." And as her voice rose, rival campaign strategists' eyebrows rose in unison: If you corner her, they must have been thinking, she loses a lot of her grace.

...

For candidates like Obama and Edwards, the key is not so much to show all the ways Clinton isn't a good liberal on matters of foreign-policy. The key is to show voters that behind the focus-grouped façade, there remains a Clinton -- untrustworthy and ambition-oriented. It is easier to make the case that the country should move beyond Bush-Clinton if you can strip Hillary of the packaging designed to make you think she resembles "change." But since Clinton is unlikely to make the same mistake again, the campaigns will have to get creative. The weakness, however, has been revealed.

...

It demonstrated that she and her campaign could be rattled. In fact her campaign compounded the problem by claiming the guys were ganging up on the girl and also blaming Tim Russert for asking a good question. In all their whining they were never able to explain why it was not a good question. In fact the friends of Clinton in the media such as the Washington Post wrote stories about what a "quandary" the issue was for Democrats. It is only a quandary if you are on the wrong side of the issue. Then it is also "thorny." It is much easier and no quandary when you favor the rule of law.