X

Email Address:

Password:

Forgot password?
OK

Commentary

Sign In | Home | Customer Service | About Us | Advertise
PRINT SUBSCRIBERS: REGISTER FOR ONLINE ACCESS

advanced search
  • Subscribe
  • Give a Gift
  • Renew
  • Register Online
  • Customer Service
  • Back Issues
  • Buy Articles
  • Donate
    1. Obama and Race
      Linda Chavez
      June 2008
    2. Gandhi and Churchill by Arthur Herman
      Mark Falcoff
      June 2008
    3. 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians: Annotated Text
      Efraim Karsh
    4. 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians—
      The True Story

      Efraim Karsh
      May 2008
    5. Land That I Love
      Joseph I. Lieberman
  1. Obama and Race
    Linda Chavez
    June 2008
  2. Gandhi and Churchill by Arthur Herman
    Mark Falcoff
    June 2008
  3. What Does Reform Judaism Stand For?
    Jack Wertheimer
    June 2008
  4. 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians: Annotated Text
    Efraim Karsh
  5. 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians—
    The True Story

    Efraim Karsh
    May 2008

Advertisement

Advertisement

contensions.jpg
about us | contact us | archive | contributors | subscribe to commentary | advertise | RSS
commentary's blogs: the horizon | contentions | connecting the dots
« Commentary Onscreen: Gordon G. Chang
Denial Spreads »

Hillary’s “No”

Fred Siegel - 11.16.2007 - 10:00 AM

The Washington Post and the New York Times may have missed it, but the New York Sun got it. The key moment for the Democrats as a party during last night’s debate came when Barack Obama stumbled on the same question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants that had tripped up Hillary Clinton two weeks earlier.

For two weeks Obama and Edwards had attacked Clinton for her flip-flopping “politics of parsing” because she seemed both to support and oppose the licenses. (Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton had taken “two weeks and six different positions to answer one question.”) But last night Clinton, having pushed New York Governor Eliot Spitzer into entirely abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses, responded with a crisp “no” when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the moderator, asked for a straight up-or-down answer on whether the candidates supported licenses for undocumented workers. Last night it was Obama who wanted it both ways. Asked the question, Obama launched into a discussion of how “When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.” But when Blitzer pressed him for a yes-or-no answer, the usually exquisitely articulate Obama froze. Visibly off-balance, he replied that “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.” He then went on to say, “I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety.” A frustrated Blizter responded, “This is the sort of question available to a yes or no answer.”

Clinton’s definitive “no” took her partly off the general election hook. But with nearly 80 percent of voters opposing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, her party, as represented by Obama and Bill Richardson, is still in the hot seat on this issue. Led by liberal Democrats, seventeen states have opposed a national standard for driver’s licenses. (In eight of these states, licenses are already being issued to undocumented workers.) This has led Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac Poll to analogize that, like affirmative action for racial minorities—an issue that badly damaged the Democrats in the 1970’s and 1980’s—today’s immigration issue has split the party’s working class supporters from its liberal activists. And as with affirmative action, liberal activists are quick to deride their opponents as racists.

Brown is right about the broad similarities. But there are also significant differences. Affirmative action and racial quotas pitted middle- and lower-middle-class white male Democrats against African-Americans and liberal activists. But on immigration, the remaining white working-class Democrats are aligned with most African-American voters, who are often those most directly in competition with low cost illegal immigrant labor. And this tension can only be exacerbated by the reality of black downward mobility. According to a new study from the Economic Mobility Project, “children of black parents earning in the middle 20 percent of all families in the late 1960’s had a 69 percent chance of earning less than their parents, the study found. For white children, that chance was just 32 percent.”

Hillary may have dodged a bullet for now, but the internal Democratic party debate on undocumented workers has only begun.

»Back to Contentions »Back to Commentary

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Google Google
Facebook Facebook
Email This Post Print This Post Permanent Link To Article


This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 10:00 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Hillary’s “No””

  1. 1
    David Thomson Says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 1:11 PM

    The politically correct Democratic Party candidates are in a no-win position regarding this issue. They cannot employ the race card because a very high number of Afro-American voters disagree with the “elites.” Contrary to what the leftist media, the strange people over at the Wall Street Journal, and even John Podhoretz believe—the illegal immigration issue benefits the Republicans. It is tailor-made for them to exploit.

  2. 2
    waka waka Says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 4:26 PM

    “the illegal immigration issue benefits the Republicans. It is tailor-made for them to exploit. ”

    That’s funny, Dave. I certainly don’t doubt they’ll exploit it, but that type of bigotry didn’t help them in Virginia or Kentucky earlier this month. Go for it!

  3. 3
    David Thomson Says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 11:27 PM

    “I certainly don’t doubt they’ll exploit it, but that type of bigotry didn’t help them in Virginia or Kentucky earlier this month.”

    Bigotry? What is your evidence for such a slander? Of course, you don’t have any. This race card nonsense has been going on for far too long. One has to distinguish between legal—and illegal immigration. All Americans of whatever racial pigmentation should want to end the latter. The issue has nothing to do with per se racism. It has everything to do with securing our borders. We do have the moral right to select immigrants with the most to offer us. There is only so much room for those, regardless of skin color or ethnicity, who are marginally to functionally illiterate.

  4. 4
    Teresa Says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 8:02 AM

    Well, Dave, if illegal immigration is such a great issue for Republicans why did J.D. Hayworth lose in Arizona last year? And why has Tom Tancredo’s campaign sunk like a stone?

    At any rate, Sanctuary City Rudy & Mitt are hardly in a position to use this issue — nor are other Republicans who want small business, Chamber of Commerce support this year. There is a significant portion of the GOP base — especially those who write checks — who do not want a crack down on illegal immigration.

Leave a Reply

Advertisement

image of latest cover
image of latest cover

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE

  • the complete archive
  • hundreds of authors
  • thousands of articles
  • American history
    since 1945

ENTER THE ARCHIVE

ADVERTISER LINKS

Illustrations by Terry Colon
Secured Loans
Used Cars
Car Loans
Car Finance by Location
Car Finance
Bad Car Credit
Debt Management
Used Cars
Concert Tickets 
Compare Secured Loans
Life Insurance
Boat Hire
Secured Loans



Advertisement


Advertisement

Commentary is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).



Home | Subscribe | About Us | Donate | Advertise | Contact Us | Legal Notices | RSS

Commentar

Copyright © 1997-2008 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved