The problem of having viability as ones core belief

NY Post Editorial:

Oh, what a dilemma for Sen. Clinton.

On the one hand are those polls showing that even a majority of local Democrats - not to mention an overwhelming 72 percent of all New Yorkers - are dead-set against Gov. Spitzer's plan to hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

On the other hand are all those Democratic special-interest groups she needs to court - the hard left, immigration activists, Hispanics - who think illegals are entitled to regular licenses, with no restrictions whatsoever.

And then there's her strongest White House rival, Barack Obama: He endorses the Spitzer plan wholeheartedly.

What's an overly cautious presidential candidate to do?

If you're Hillary Clinton, there's only one possible course of action: waffle, double-talk - and desperately try to change the subject.

Which is precisely what she did in Tuesday night's Democratic debate when pressed on the issue - as the other candidates were quick to gleefully point out.

And what one of her spokesmen did shortly afterward when he tried to explain her debate remarks.

And what Hillary herself did again yesterday, after nearly 24 hours of turmoil - when her campaign released a statement intended to "clarify" her position.

It read: "Sen. Clinton supports governors like Gov. Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Which means she stands - where, exactly?

...

It means her sole interest in the issue is how it effects her viability as a candidate. She is just not as good as Bill was with the "feel your pain" answers. It takes more than empathy on some issues.

The NY Times reported, "Her verbal twists and turns provided her opponents with fodder for their central critique of Mrs. Clinton, which coursed throughout Tuesday’s debate: that she was trying to have it both ways on the issue, much as she was trying to portray herself as antiwar while voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq." The paper said she was trying to thread the needle between those in Iowa who strongly oppose illegal immigration while still courting Hispanic voting blocks. I thinking it is not working for her right now.

The Washington Times goes over the responses of her opponents to the question. Chris Dodd seem to be the most coherent, probably because he was the only one who was clearly against the Sptizer plan.

In the Washington Post her advisers are quoted as saying the attacks by the male opponents will drive up the women vote for Hillary. That does not sound like a very presidential response to criticism--"don't criticize the girl."

I think at some point she is going to be forced to choose sides on this issue and I think she will wind up against it.