Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Barack Obama, but… ..

People just don’t seem to understand how important it is to give each candidate
scrutiny. Deification is the order of the day. Clinton hasn’t won the nomination
yet and frontrunner status shouldn’t inspire a one target questioning spree.
Because it doesn’t help if we know every nuance of Clinton’s political philosophy,
but we don’t get to know what the other candidates think about critical issues
that matter. If Clinton wins we’re informed on our nominee. If she doesn’t win
we won’t know what we’re getting.

In the debate last week during the immigration back and forth at the end, Edwards
stood mute. There’s a reason. His position is not only a flip flop from 2004,
but also seems to pander to Iowa voters. It’s also wrong.

… .. Immigration policy experts on both sides of the debate say they’re puzzled by Edwards’ stance, which appears to hinge on blurring the distinction between state and federal powers. “He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn’t support the Spitzer plan because it doesn’t include a path to citizenship,” said Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton. “That’s not a rational position — Eliot Spitzer couldn’t ever offer somebody a path to citizenship,” said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform. “I don’t know if they think you’re stupid or what they think,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigrantion Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop. Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position. That is “sort of like saying I oppose the confederate flag in Southern states because there’s not a corresponding flag burning amendment to it. It’s nonsensical,” Sharry said. Indeed, opposing Spitzer’s plan on those grounds amounts to de facto opposition to any driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, something Edwards and his aides have not previously stated. That’s a dramatic shift from Edwards’ stand in 2004, when he told “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews, “I’m for it,” when asked about licenses for illegal immigrants. Edwards may be changing his position to court working-class Iowa voters, among whom illegal immigration is an emotionally charged issue. … .. Edwards immigration stand muddled as HRC’s

The only top tier candidate who is clear and concise on illegal immigration
is Barack Obama, who wants to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses. Whether
you think it’s right or wrong one thing is clear besides his stance. It’s red
meat for wingnuts. But if it’s the right thing to do and you can back it up
it won’t matter. Richard Clarke agrees and he’s one of the most astute counterterrorism
analysts in the country.

Everyone is attacking Clinton because she’s in front. Meanwhile, the guys get
less scrutiny. It’s bad politics. It’s bad for our party. Unfortunately, not
enough people care, which means we may get a nominee we don’t know. Treat them
all equally, asking them each questions on the same issues so voters can compare,
including follow ups. Dissect all of their views. It’s not over yet. Besides,
if someone is as clear as Barack Obama is on illegal immigration he deserves
to be heard on it. Just like we need to know when Edwards gets one wrong and
he sure is on this one. What makes it worse is that he also tagged Spitzer while blowing it.

Now to that but from the top of my post because it’s important. Advocating giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses is bad politics by itself, but it’s not all Obama did either. Only comprehensive immigration reform will work, which is what he said, though that’s not in the article above. If Obama leads with a declarative statement about giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses he’ll get creamed and if he’s our nominee so will we. It’s not fair or right, but it’s what the wingnuts do and digging out after a negative onslaught is a lot harder than getting it right from the start. Say it with me: comprehensive immigration reform; targeting employers and funding investigative units included. Nothing less will do. Making sure the press reports not only Obama’s support for Spitzer, but also that he supports comprehensive immigration reform is part of the issue too.