In a scene from the “Seinfeld” television series, George Costanza is cornered by a bookstore manager. George, the series’ great spinner of unbelievable tales, has been caught trying to return to the shelves a $100 art book he had taken into the restroom.
“Excuse me,” the manager asks, “did you take that book with you into the bathroom?”
George looks confused for a moment, considering his options before replying, “What do you want to hear?”
That scene pretty much sums up Hillary Clinton’s “position” on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Two Democratic debates ago, Clinton gave a convoluted answer when asked if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegals. She said Spitzer’s plan made “a lot of sense” as a way for the governor to deal with a serious problem that the Bush administration had failed to address.
But she “clarified” later that she did not say it should be done, just that Spitzer’s solution was understandable and anyway, it was all Bush’s fault.
It was typical Clintonian mush. Just as President Bill had done, Sen. Clinton was trying to have it both ways on an issue. She was justly hammered for her waffling.
It’s a simple question really: Do you think illegal immigrants should get driver’s licenses? On simple questions, Americans expect simple answers — like “yes” or “no.” On this question, most Americans answer “no” — so much so that Spitzer was forced to withdraw his plan for New York.
By last week’s debate in Las Vegas, Clinton had puzzled out her position. When asked about driver’s licenses for illegals, she replied with a one-word answer: “No.”
Do you believe her? Or did Hillary, like George Costanza, simply decide what it is that people want to hear?
