Predictions for tomorrows debate: What will Obama say on DLs?

Wolf Blizter confirmed on air this evening that the "issue" of drivers licenses for undocumented aliens will be covered in the Dem debate he is moderating tomorrow.

We know that Hillary has dropped the issue as of today, reversing her somewhat vague earlier position. I'm not sure where Edwards is on it.... mysterious. Dodd is no. Richardson is yes. And Obama is, at least as of the last debate, an unqualified yes. Obama is to be complemented for his clear support of this issue. I agree with his position. (I also think it is political suicide, like many things I agree with... sigh)

The question is, when asked about the issue at tomorrow night's debate, how will Obama handle it. Whatever the answer, he won't be shooting from the hip. Clinton, Edwards and Obama will all have memorized, practiced positions on the topic.

Will Senator Obama hang tough on his support (setting himself as odd man out on the issue), bail out (joining the safety of the pack), or try for a vague middle course (which got Clinton in trouble last time)?

On Edit: Also, what will Edwards say? (He seems to be at a nuanced, flippy "no" of some sort. Will he join Clinton's "will not support..." statement?)

Same as he would have done had he been a Senator for the Iraq authorization.

changed her position so much theres no telling where she will be at.

In your earlier thread you were given an opportunity to understand - I see it didn't take.

Again - She only provided support to the Governor in his attempt to solve the "identification" problem and support him in his difficult job because the feds are failing to address the "immigration" issue. End of story - except of course for the media (the Lost Boys of NBC and others) and candidate spin and supporters of certain candidates.

Your candidate for instance is going to be eaten alive by his position over the next few weeks as the country is simply not with him. As for Edwards, he has taken five different position over the past three years. And worse, he clearly has no understanding of the separation of powers between the states and the federal government. He needs to go back to law school and start over - that path to citizenship tied to state identification thingie just makes him look stupid.

That's how it needs to be framed. I'd personally rather NOT be the victim of a hit and run by a driver who is scared of being deported. Same thing applies with health care. I'd rather NOT get a contagious disease from someone who is scared to go to the emergency room.

The way to get public support for this is to make people see that it could affect them personally. That will effectively hobble the GOP's - and some of the other Dem candidate's - position on driver's licenses. Then go in for the kill: "We have millions of unlicensed, uninsured drivers endangering our citizens because GEORGE BUSH hasn't done anything about illegal immigration for EIGHT YEARS! We can't take a chance on another do-nothing Republican administration! We need to elect a President who will solve our immigration crisis so that we can ALL drive a little safer on our nation's highways!"

Or something like that.

Wait a minute while I check with Elizabeth. She got a good grade in constitutional law.

Turn it into ?s. Do we fear terrorist? Do we fear immigrants? Do we fear car accidents? Do we fear getting into an accident with a person without insurance? { whoopee they go to jail,you get zip}. Business wants cheap labor. If that what you wants ok .

We are in agreement. ;)

Only those with the courage to risk what some call political suicide ultimately earn respect.

Some politicians never learn that. I doubt Hillary ever will.

Wes Clark understands this principle; Hillary Clinton does not. It's catching up with her now.

"What I've said is, it is better off that we know that when people are driving, that they know the rules of the road, are subject to insurance, and make sure we can track them if they get into an accident. And a lot of security experts agree with me on this issue. It's not optimal. I think what we need to do is make sure that we don't have undocumented workers coming into the country in the first place.

But here's the more important point. People know where I stand on this, and we can have a serious discussion and debate about it. We're not going to be able to restore trust in government, and we're not going to get a mandate for change after the election if we are all over the map in terms of our positions."

I agree with his stance. If I were him I would drop it like it was hot, but I can appreciate consistency too.

Ah...who really knows WHAT she believes? She even SAID a president shouldn't say what they think. She's had so many positions in order to appeal to all sides that her disingenuosness is coming through loud and clear.

just listening to the criticism does not count. She has been consistent--more so than Obama.

But try to downplay his support and also offer sympathy for Spitzer. Thing is, it's kind of a sore point for the Clinton campaign so I doubt they'll use it much to ding Obama in Iowa. Hopefully tomorrow's debate will be the end of this silly topic. Since Senators alone can do little, and congress and teh WH failed to do anything, there's little point in harassing the candidates since they're not likely to be able to waltz in in Jan. '09 and enact much of anything concerning immigration quickly. This si something that will probably be debated at the federal level for the next 4-6 years.

if he tries to nuance it, he will fall into the same grinder as Clinton last time. The media loves pre-packaged meaningless issues.

I looks lose-lose to me. Everyone says they want candidates to take tough stances, then vote against them in record numbers when they do. The only thing candidates gain from taking stances is respect after they lose.

The pundits who always demand candidates take tough stances are like the fans who always yell for their team to go for it on fourth down.

'Sen. Barack Obama, D-Il, is standing by his support for granting driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants,
even after Gov. Eliot Spitzer, D-NY, abandoned the proposal amidst rising political opposition.

"Obama said in the debate he supported it and he's standing by it," an aide to the Senator told the Huffington Post.
"He supported a similar bill in the state senate as a law enforcement measure."

Obama's backing stands in stark contrast to the position taken by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, whose campaign now
cites the issue as a basic policy difference between the two Democratic frontrunners.'

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/15/04744/397

:thumbsup:

He will say what he said last time about it. There will be no waffling.

Watch and learn how real leaders lead.

...and perhaps ask Clinton why she quickly changed her position on it as soon as Spitzer bailed...

It should be an interesting exchange where Dodd will also chime in as well as Edwards. Richardson will lay low.

But only once they're not illegal anymore - uh, you know, that ol' Edwards singlespeak.

He'll be the only one of the top three to take that position, and if he's able to be clear and coherent, he'll come out way ahead even if people disagree with him on the substance.

For what it's worth, I like his position on this.

her on it and Obama will gain even more respect for sticking to his convictions AND remaining civil.

he thumped Hillary for this. I think Sptizer was leaned on by the, um, Dem power-brokers to retract his plan. How transparent. Obama has been consistent, many folks disagree, but damn if he isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

Yup, I agree that that's what happened. And then she flipped AGAIN which opens her up even MORE to the charge of saying what she thinks people want to hear.