The Democrats debate (again), but...

...this time it may have been important. Because Senator Clinton for the first time got bad marks. Why? See her answers to a question concerning a plan by New York Governor Spitzer to make driver's licenses available to illegal immigrants. Answer 1: "What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Answer 2: "Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.
Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

Answer 3: "Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "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 got defensive. "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 problems. 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."

Wow! What duplicity and double-talk.

No wonder Edwards and Obama pounced. This is exactly what they wanted out of this debate. Maybe it was bound to happen. Here's a summary of the media's unanimous hammering of Clinton for her poor performance. The Politico's Roger Simon had perhaps the best summary:
"We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night...And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says."

Senator Clinton slams them Southern yahoo hicks

She suggests maybe she's not doing so well in states like Iowa and Mississippi because states like that have never elected a woman. Mississippi doesn't surprise her; but Iowa does, she says:
"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

So Mississippi's got no "openness", got no "quality"?
Say goodbye to the South, Mrs. Clinton!
Is she really going to have what it takes to hack it on the national stage as a major party candidate for the next year?

An amazing flip-flop/spin move; how will the judges score it...

Unsurprisingly, the move comes from Senator Clinton. Firstcame the flip-flop; then, when her opponents caught her, came the spin. Watch--it's amazing:

Obama noted on Friday that when he said in July he would meet with such leaders without setting any conditions, Clinton called his stance “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
Questioned Thursday by a voter in New Hampshire, Clinton said twice that she would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”
“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said.
Obama said Friday, “So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this — when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.”
…
Clinton said Friday her remarks on Thursday weren’t different from anything she has said in the past.
“I would begin a process of negotiations with Iran. There would be no conditions set to what could be negotiated — and that is what is meant by no conditions,” Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press in Columbia, S.C.
Clinton said the process would be handled by aides, not the president — similar to the way the U.S. has handled North Korea.
“That’s very different from saying that if you were president, you would personally meet in your first year, without conditions, with these odious dictators,” Clinton said.