Roger Simon: The Bitch is Back - Diamonds and Pearls for Hillary

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6926.html

LAS VEGAS — The (rhymes with rich) is back.

In a Democratic debate here Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was not the passive, parsing, punching bag that she was at the last debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.

She gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her, stubbed their toes.

John Edwards got booed when he attacked her for taking money from Washington lobbyists — a charge he has made many times before — and seemed both surprised and irritated.

But when it came to a real stumble, Clinton left that to her chief opponent, Barack Obama.

He tried the same duck-and-cover tactic that Clinton failed at in the last debate and on the same subject: driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Obama if he supported giving out such licenses, Obama replied: “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 Blitzer was not going to settle for a non-answer answer and said: “Do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?”

Obama replied: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.”

This led to laughter in the debate hall and it was not the good kind of laughter.

“No, no, no, no, look,” Obama said, trying to stumble his way out of his own answer, but Blitzer was properly relentless.

“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer,” Blitzer said and the audience laughed again.

And, again, it was not the kind of laughter that Obama wanted to hear.

Finally, Blitzer said: “Senator Obama, yes or no?”

Obama was pinned. “Yes,” he replied.

Clinton neither parsed nor obfuscated — this time. When asked if she would also support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, she replied with a firm, “No.”

She said nothing more. She didn’t need to.

diamonds or pearls? Lousy question in all honesty, but sorry, politico, and Roger Simon, you both suck.

I think the metaphoric idea of "diamonds and pearls" should be obvious to everyone.

It's a metaphor implying that she won.

than I've seen of late. Still not presidential material, but much more humane.

edit: I was sorry to see Richardson looking so portly. I like his message.

Who, in your opinion, is slim enough and presidential enough to run?

And missing the point.

Let's pick the shit out of the debate, and highlight the LEAST important aspects of it, so our simpleminded readers will think that's all there was to it...yeah...that's the ticket!!!

Let's try, in so doing, to make each and every candidate talked about in this fetid, wingnut site's hit piece (disguised as something else, like--haha--an 'analysis') look like fucking idiots.

I can't stand Politico. It has GOP STANK on it.

Roger Simon can't say a truly nice thing about Democrats if his life depended on it.
What comes out is always snark disguised as a compliment.

Reducing a complicated issue to yes or no is a trap (which is why I hate these "debates"). Me, I would never have answered his way. I'd ask him which kind of drivers license he was talking about, the original proposal or the compromise, and did he feel comfortable driving on the road knowing unaccountable, uninsured, unlicensed drivers could be come at him from anywhere?

But that's just me. Because my mommy taught me: "Never play by THEIR rules."

There's a world of difference between discussing an issue and debating. My candidate understands rules and is a consummate player.

Infuriating? Perhaps to those who carry their own defective agenda. But if you want an effective executive with sympathetic leanings, enjoy the show!