How happy is Sen. Hillary Clinton that Gov. Spitzer stirred up his licenses- for-illegals firestorm?
Not very, we’d guess.
She’s been talking from both sides of her mouth on the issue since last week’s presidential debate – and her dissembling appears to be costing her.
A Rasmussen poll showed that Clinton’s support in New Hampshire (the site of the debate) has dropped sharply: She was up by 23 points a month ago, but is now defending a narrowing, 10-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama.
This shouldn’t surprise.
A recent Washington Times national poll showed 77 percent of Americans believe illegal aliens shouldn’t be allowed to have driver’s licenses.
This is understandable: Illegal immigration is a major concern in America – one Washington steadfastly refuses to deal with. Small wonder, then, that the licenses-for-illegals dispute has become a surrogate for the immigration debate that the nation sorely needs, but that the political class refuses to conduct.
Earlier this year, the discussion was about “guest workers,” “Z visas” and a “path to citizenship” – whatever they are.
By contrast, there’s a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question:
“Yes” is a vote for illegal immigration.
“No” is a vote against it.
Is that fair?
Probably not.
But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have – and value – but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton’s misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch.
Will she recover?
Well, she’s a Clinton, and Clintons adapt. And with two months to go before the New Hampshire primary, she remains the party front-runner with a formidable organization.
But you can bet she wants Spitzer to put a cork in it.