home

Obama Reaffirms Support for Drivers' Licenses for the Undocumented

On ABC News tonight, Barack Obama reaffirmed his support for drivers' licenses for the undocumented, saying it's an issue of public safety.

He also earned the support of the Spanish newspaper, La Opinion, over Hillary:

"We were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama," wrote La Opinion's editorial board. "We understand that this is an extremely controversial issue but we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the senator from Illinois."

I strongly support drivers' licenses for the undocumented. But it's states that issue drivers' licenses. I wonder if Obama will take it a step further and work to get Congress to pass a law withholding federal funds from states that don't allow drivers' licenses for the undocumented. That's what the feds did when they wanted states to lower the speed limit to 55. Why can't we do it with drivers' licenses?

< The Blogosphere Should Not Have Candidates | Obama Used to Favor Decriminalization of Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The issue is symbolism but (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    extremely important symbolism in the face of the rampant anti-Latinon sentiment fanned by Dobbsism.

    There can be no doubt that Obama took this position long before the Cali primary so his highlighting it now can not be viewed as pandering - though personally I think pandering is not only fine but important.

    It makes me more enthusiastic for an Obama candidacy.

    I will also add that of course the GOP is going to go after him on this.

    so you went (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    from tepid to enthusiastic on an old position?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:39:01 PM EST
    I went from neutral to tepid support based on this very important position.

    I dropped Dodd over this issue.


    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#59)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:37:44 PM EST
    your post above says enthusiastic so I couldnt tell if your overall feeling had changed/improved.

    Parent
    to clarify: (none / 0) (#75)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    "It makes me more enthusiastic for an Obama candidacy."  I took this to mean now.

    Parent
    With McCain? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    I will also add that of course the GOP is going to go after him on this.

    That would be a fun debate.  Straight talk express keeps loosing more wheels.  "You were a leading proponent before you started running for president."  

    Parent

    Not for drivers licenses (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:45:52 PM EST
    This debate - I don't understand. (none / 0) (#58)
    by fullcircle on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:34:32 PM EST
    I can't comprehend how a country can have any sort of restrictions on immigration and then turn around and grant a legal document to someone who, by definition, is not in the country legally.

    Why would anyone support giving "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented workers" social security, welfare, in state or out of state tuition, or admission into a state school of any kind, when they know that technically they are subject to deportation at any moment?

    The ONLY stance on this issue that seems remotely reasonable to me is sweeping reform to immigration policy. If we are going to grant a dozen legal acknowledgments to someone who is not technically supposed to be here then grant them the ONE that matters, the ability to be here legally. Give them the whole deal at the border, stamp their hand, tell them there is a one month minimum stay before they are granted permanent resident status, or citizenship, their choice. Permanent residents would not be allowed to vote, but citizens would, but if a person WANTS to remain a citizen of their native country we should let them. Last I checked the United States didn't officially acknowledge dual citizenship.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    he gets some additional Hispanic support for sticking his neck out, If we don't reward people for taking up our issues, we will just be a taken for granted Dem voting block.

    Parent
    It is one of the substantive reasons (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    I support him.

    Parent
    Empty promise (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    It's not in his power, its hollow pandering, but will get the anti people against him. How is this great?

    Parent
    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    there is no such thing as hollow pandering. It ALL means something.

    But this particular position is important - it is the stand in for standing up to the hate against Latino immigration.

    IT is drawing a line in the sand against Dobbsism.

    Parent

    There is (none / 0) (#70)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    no such thing ss hollow pandering because all pandering is hollow by defintion.

    Parent
    Please explain why the driver's license issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    is so important to you, as I know it is.

    It seems to me there are so many other issues more important to Latinos who are undocumented and working/living in the U.S.  For example, legal social security nos.; ability to work legally with resultant higher wages, possible health coverage; in state tuition; ability to safely have family members come across the border to reunite. I don't envision persons subject to prosecution and deportation lining up at the DMV to get a driver license.  I do support undocumented persons having state permission to apply for driver license, I just don't see it as the most important privilege at present.  

    Parent

    Occulus (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    you said it for me - that is why I am confused - why would an illegal who has avoided paperwork line up for paperwork.  I mean, it is a trap.

    Odd.

    Parent

    The symbol is extremely important (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    The resistance to the policy, a fairly no frills appeal to driving safety, is utterly driven by anti-Latino bias. There is no rational basis for opposing the policy.

    As a symbol, it will be central in the GE if Obama is the nominee. From my perspective, this is GOOD. VERY GOOD.

    Parent

    Seems to me he will lose (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    some primary voters who favor change, but not a change "coddling" people who "broke our laws" to get here.  I agree with HRC at the last debate; undocumented workers are here; there is no means to deport millions of people nor a collective will to do it given employers are enabling to their own benefit and to the benefit of the rest of us. If the U.S. was serious about monitoring who lives here, the executive branch would get a handle on who enters legally on a visa but overstays the visa.  And of course, like many countries around the world, we would have a national ID.  Such a foolish hot button issue.  

    Parent
    So be it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:49:50 PM EST
    He got my support.

    Let's count the votes and see where we stand.

    Parent

    I'm afraid this is "faith-based." (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    How does a President implement state driver license eligibility?  Even if the President had any power over how states regulate eligibility for driver licenses, how will Obama specifically implement such power?  Will he need the cooperation of a majority of Congress?

    To me, you are happy he is sending a signal but you are not concerned with implementation, feasibility, etc.  Correct?  

    Parent

    You miss my point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST
    The policy itslef is less important.

    Standing up to the MOTIVATION for the opposition is critical.

    Parent

    Think of it this way (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:01:30 PM EST
    Donnie McClurkin was not a POLICY issue.

    It was an issue about standing up to bigotry.

    What madeit so much weorse for Obama is HE DID NOT NEED TO do what he did with McClurkin. He should have thrown him off the tour.

    It was a disgrace from him.

    Parent

    I guess we each have our prime issue. (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    Mine is choice, on which Obama voted "present."  

    Parent
    I think it is different (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    Here's why.

    What Obama says as a Presidential candidate is much more important than how he voted in the Illinois state legislature.

    I think his McClurkin pander was worse than his present votes.

    Parent

    That's 'cause you are a guy. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST
    The McClurkin headliner deal offends me on behalf of those who are gay, lesbian etc. But the next President will be nominating to SCOTUS people who could entirely obliterate Roe v. Wade.  Obama should stand up and be counted now if he is, in fact, going to work on behalf of women on this issue.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    I do not think so.

    I was easily the most vociferous defender of women's rights and particularly the right to choose as a FPer at daily kos.

    I think it is merely a difference of opinion on the importance of what PResidential candidates say.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    with what you are saying on pandering--they all do it; however, to find out what they actually believe and will work on when the pandering is over, one has to look at the record.

    Obama's record on choice is present.

    Hillary's record on choice is "heck yes."

    As far as I know, neither has had to take a vote on the drivers license issue, so to me, you can't compare pandering on choice to pandering on licensing.

    Hairsplitting, I know, but I think it's an important distinction.  We have no idea whether or not Obama will support the licensing issue come the general election or not.  He may, in fact, back pedal when he sees that it is a politically volatile position to have.  During the debate, Hillary pointed out that he'd already done this and he nodded and said, "yeah, yeah, I did," or something similar.

    In a race against McCain, however, I don't think immigration is going to be easy to co-opt as a democratic party value.

    Parent

    And I applaud you for that support. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:50:21 PM EST
    Hillary's flip-flop on this is incoherent (none / 0) (#47)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    I agree with HRC at the last debate; undocumented workers are here; there is no means to deport millions of people nor a collective will to do it given employers are enabling to their own benefit and to the benefit of the rest of us.

    Then why not alow for drivers licenses?  Hillary's position seems incoherent to me.  When it was first brought up in an early debate she was clearly inclined to support Sptizer, and her support as a NY Senator would have more symbolic meaning in NY State, but then she pandered to anti-immigrant sentiment IMHO.

    Parent

    I think she doesn't really need to have (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    a position, either as a Senator, or as a Presidential candidate.  What she sd. was more meaningful in the greater picture of helping those presently in the U.S.  

    Parent
    But she has one nonetheless. Why? (none / 0) (#54)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    Its all Mark Penn's fault. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    LOL! Maybe I'll reconsider my support for Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:54:27 PM EST
    Perhaps where you live (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rojas on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    But in Texas and so much of the country without mass transport, it's very important. You will not get a good job without it.

    Parent
    yeah, but uh (none / 0) (#79)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    shouldnt we give them the right to be here and work here first?

    Parent
    If underage drinkers can get (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    a fake state DL, I don't really think there is much problem getting one.

    Parent
    Thats a big deal these days (none / 0) (#93)
    by Rojas on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST
    Felony, I think.
    War on terror an all.
    Not a good idea to hand it to the cop if ya get pulled over. Better to drive without one.

    Parent
    I don't either. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Maddie In Florida on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    In Florida, where we have many undocumented workers, they cannot get insurance.  

    Besides, it is a state issue. The federal government can make all the hopla they want on this issue but the states will not give in on this.

    Parent

    I like (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    South Africa's system for covering drivers.  There is an insurance premium collected on every gallon of gas sold that goes into a national fund.  Everyone is covered, and people who drive more pay more.  It is so logical that I doubt we'll ever see anything like it in our lifetime.


    Parent
    Illinois is the 5th largest state of Hispanics (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    Chicago and New York are the 2 largest(??) cities with Hispanics - and one difference is that you don't need a car in New York city to get to work whereas you do in Chicago

    Parent
    car (none / 0) (#88)
    by tek on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:55:30 PM EST
    You absolutely don't need a car to get anywhere in Chicago. The city has one of the best public transportation systems in the country that includes, trains, lite rail, buses and the "L." Chicago has the second biggest Hispanic population after Phoenix. I lived in the Chicago area last year, everything, EVERYTHING, is in Spanish. The flood the city landmarks with red, green, and white lights on Mexico's Independence Day.

    Parent
    ok, but I was just going by the (none / 0) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights group who says

    Many of these immigrants need to drive in order to
    get to work, take their children to school, shop, and perform other tasks in their daily lives.



    Parent
    Good Principle - Bad Policy? (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    Why I'm against issuing standard driver's licenses to the undocumented.

    Drivers license's here in MO are used as proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

    When registering in person, applicants are required to present a valid Missouri driver's license or another form of personal identification.

    If the undocumented were issued standard licenses, there would be a legitimate case for requiring more stringent proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Not a good idea IMO.

    Having a database of all undocumented workers is also troublesome to me because of all the crazies that would definitely use this information in a way that would be harmful.

    I can understand the emotions involved in this issue but I can also see the drawbacks to enacting this policy.

    Divisive Diversion (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    The entire drivers' license issue, IMO, is a diversion designed by the GOP to divide folks.  Both Obama and Clinton said this at the last debate and they're right.  

    The only reason this is an issue is because the Federal Government has failed to deal with the undocumented.  I would much rather spend the political capital to see that problem fixed than fighting over drivers' licenses that most undocumented workers won't want for fear that they'll be used against them or to find them.  And, frankly, they will be.  One of the primary ways law enforcement agencies find people is through DMV records.  In California, those records even include a fingerprint.  

    What we need is comprehensive reform that provides a path of citizenship for undocumented workers, focuses the enforcement of the immigration laws on employers, and raises the number of folks permitted to immigrate legally from Mexico and Latin America.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad Obama has decided to stick with this position, but frankly, it's not nearly as important in the big picture as universal healthcare and that includes for the Latino community.

    the flip side is (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    This seems like an obvious position to take however the argument against this is interesting. The undocumented come out of the shadows to get the driver's license making it easier to identify them for other reasons, i.e. deportation.

    Real ID Act (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today a final rule establishing minimum security standards for state-issued drivers' licenses and identification cards. The rule sets uniform standards that enhance the integrity and reliability of drivers' licenses and identification cards, strengthen issuance capabilities, and increase security at drivers' license and identification card production facilities. The final rule also dramatically reduces state implementation costs by roughly 73 percent.

    There is already a push for Federal standards already due to 9/11 .....

    "The American public's desire for greater identity protection is undeniable," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "Americans understand today that the 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 drivers licenses and ID's, and used 364 aliases. For an extra $8 per license, REAL ID will give law enforcement and security officials a powerful advantage against falsified documents, and it will bring some peace of mind to citizens wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal alien."

    If you live in a state that does NOT comply will you are going to have to get a passport just to board a plane.

    With this in mind.... I do not see how illegals would be able to get a license.

    REAL ID will address document fraud by setting specific requirements that states must adopt for compliance, to include: (1) information and security features that must be incorporated into each card; (2) proof of the identity and U.S. citizenship or legal status of an applicant; (3) verification of the source documents provided by an applicant; and (4) security standards for the offices that issue licenses and identification cards.

    Minimum standards include:

    information and security features that must be incorporated into each card

    proof of identity and U.S. citizenship or legal status of an applicant

    verification of the source documents provided by an applicant

    security standards for the offices that issue licenses and identification cards.

    Deadline is Dec 2009


    wouldn't that be a step (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    closer to national IDs?

    My concern, exactly -- as pointed out by Latino/a (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    friends: that it would allow tracking of the undocumented and even encourage deportation.  Say it has to be done by states, BTD, but it won't prevent access to those records by the feds/INS.  

    I want every driver on the road with me to pass a driver's test and be licensed, you bet.  And I appreciate the symbolic value, believe me.

    But I trust the federal government as much as my Latino/a friends do.  And they haven't figured out a way around this, either -- unless we really think we can get a law that says you can get a legal license but won't be prosecuted if you're breaking another law.

    (Stupid as that law is -- I want the same open borders that allowed my ancestors to come here . . . although through Canada, since they were stopped and sent away at Eastern ports, too.  Frankly, I first would push for resident tuition to public universities for all graduates of our high schools, whether brought here undocumented or not.  That's an issue in my state and going nowhere -- while another generation goes without college.)

    As for this, once again with Senator Obama, I want to hear HOW he is going to make this work -- and make it more than symbolic for people afraid to come forward for driver's licenses.

    Parent

    That all may be (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:51:03 PM EST
    but the issue here, the primary issue, is standing up to the bigotry thast fuels the opposition.

     

    Parent

    Okay, that I can see -- for now (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    but I want my students and their families to not live in fear.  I would give back to Latinos/as the third of this country that we took from them, if I could!  (Most in my area are Mexicanos/as, and the Mexican-American War is right up there with the current war in national disgraces, to me.  I know that there are many others -- Central and South Americans.  We have our own bad history with many of their countries, too. . . .)

    So I want a candidate who will make this more than a symbol on the campaign trail.  I want immigration reform.  Period.  If this is a way to get it, okay.  If not, I will be furious at false hopes, again.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM EST
    The first step is to overcome the rampant bigotry that fuels the fear and the nativism that leads to ridiculous walls and LAtino bashing.

    Parent
    Congratulations (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    I have been reading and commenting on TL since about this time in 2003.

    You are the first person I have seen that openly admits that your agenda is to give the SW back to Mexico.

    What do you think would happen to the US citizens who live in LA, Phoenix, etc.? What do you think would happen to our economy??

    Parent

    My "agenda"? Uh, no. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    My "agenda" doesn't matter.

    My historical understanding of how and why our country created this immigration mess is what matters.  We cannot go back, of course -- or I would save the lives of a lot of Vietnamese and Iraqis, too -- but we can employ historical understanding.

    I happen to live close to the Canadian border and am descended from French Canadians.  I have family in Michilimackinac (Mackinac Island to you:-), where people go back and forth daily to work, to see family, etc.  I can imagine what could have happened if we had lost the War of 1812 (when my part of the country still was effectively Nouvelle France) and/or put up barriers at that border as we have with our southern border.  Parents, children, cousins could not reunite or see each other again.

    The Rio Grande really is just a river.  I also can imagine if my town, split by three rivers, suddenly found one became an international border -- and then became a barrier in the middle of my community.  It is just wrong, and realizing how we got into this mess in the name of manifest destiny  -- and especially for the sake of the spread of slavery -- at least helps me look more critically at our current leaders and wonder if they have any historical knowledge or even common sense.

    And that helps me decide for whom to vote.  (Guess what?  My candidate consistently shows knowledge of our history; the other candidates do not.)

    Parent

    Some thoughts (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    The facts of the matter is that a country is defined by borders and culture.

    Both are defined by war and settlement.

    The Mexicans lost the war. We won. It really is that simple.

    For some reason I think that you are a teacher.

    I pray that I am wrong.

    In any event, I find your notion of "giving back" the southwest to Mexico beyond dumb.

    But it does define who you are, and where your head us regarding this country.

    Since you obviously think we have done so much wrong I can not imagine you wanting to live here.

    When can we expect your departure??

    Parent

    I dont (none / 0) (#5)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    undersand this whole thing.  truly.  Are we talking about licenses for illegals?

    Yes. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    ok (none / 0) (#61)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST
    I will read everyone-

    Parent
    Pandering (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    What will he do next for votes? BTD you are right. But, this is the kind of thing that will get him on the GE, it got Gray Davis and gave us Arnold. If Hillary says anything, she will be painted as anti hispanic. Now who is playing the race card. Axelrod at work.

    Id id not say it made him more electable (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    I suspect it makes him LESS electable.

    But I believe it is an issue worth fight for. What underlies opposition - in essence this is the standin for hating immigrants imo - is unmitigated bigotry.

    Parent

    But this fuels the hatred (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    we need immigration law reform. This is a lightning rod that fuels the hatred. I know that it makes sense from a public policy, but politically I don't get the benefit other than primary votes.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:48:59 PM EST
    This does not fuel that which already exists.

    You have it backwards.

    Parent

    Spitzer (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    Did you see what happened to him and Hillary saying she supported his policy? He had to back down. How was that no fueled by hatred? How did that not add to the hatred? Even that moron Ed Schultz was ranting and raving about it claiming it was progressive.

    Parent
    They backed down because of the hatred (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:54:45 PM EST
    not because the policy was wrong.

    The civil rights and gay rights and womens rights movements fueled and fuel plenty of hate.

    I will not give up an inch on any of it.

    I am for gay marriage, for choice, for affirmative action.

    I will not let the hate pushe me back on that.

    I am not running for office of course so I have that luxury.

    Pols are poils and will do what they do.

    But MY support and MY vote will seek that which most agrees with my views.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    but is it valid to make a distinction when someone is supporting your view with validity and not just for vote gain in one particular instant. See, this kind of politics is always fleeting, tomorrow he will change.

    Parent
    Obama took this stand (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:02:43 PM EST
    when it was politically expedient to take the other position.

    Clinton's flip flop on the issue is instructive.

    SHE pandered. He did not.

    Parent

    Not to be partisan! (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    I think Hillary did not agree with the position. She took a policy wonky position at the debate that basically said it was the Governors choice even though she did not agree. Did she then come out and oppose? (

    Parent
    Yes, at the last debate. (none / 0) (#50)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    it doesnt stand (none / 0) (#74)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    on its own - it has threads to so many other legal issues that is is silly to act like it is an easy pro or con.

    Parent
    Was I being silly? (none / 0) (#81)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    Did I say it was easy?

    Parent
    Any chance Obama picked the driver (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    license question to support this particular weekend, knowing Spitzer and HRC got huge backlash on this particular issue?  If Obama cares about Latinos who are not documented, why doesn't he pick a different issue, one that would actually help them?

    Parent
    There is no doubt he did (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    First of all, I say this all the time, pandering is NOT per se bad. The WHAT is critical.

    Pandering to homophobes in the A-A community is bad.

    Pandering to Latinos on this is good.

    Imo of course.

    Parent

    The pandering to homophobes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    doesn't appear to have been limited to those in the African American community.

    Today Obama is pandering to gun lovers in Idaho, although his voting record is at odds with his words.  

    Parent

    In A Previous Debate Obama Said (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    he was for more gun control and something about needing to weaken the influence of the NRA.

    At the rate he is going, the Republicans will have a better case for a commercial about flip flopping than they did with Kerry.

    Parent

    He hasn't been filmed carrying his (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    captured kill from hunting yet has he?

    Parent
    Thank gawd (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    I thought Kerry's space suit photo op was even worse.

    Unfortunately, if Obama gets the nomination, he will still have time to do something equally ridiculous.

    Parent

    That is bad pandering from my perspective (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    Jeralyn has a different view on gun rights.

    Parent
    Speaking for myself only,, (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    I fervently disagree with her and cannot understand how a criminal defense attorney supports more relaxed gun ownership laws.  Full employment maybe.  

    Parent
    And I have the luxury of watching him for (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:06:56 PM EST
    a couple more weeks until my primary, far from the southwest.  Let's see if this issue lasts with him.

    I still deeply distrust him after the mistakes with the LGBT community, too.  And he never apologized for that . . . and only made it worse.

    Parent

    I'm in the land of Super Tues. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    and mailed my absentee ballot immed. after Thurs. night's debate.  So why do I care so much?

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    it is not hating immigrants.  It is about illegal immigration.  Don't mix the two.

    If Illegals get drivers licenses, then will they be able to use those to register to vote?  

    Parent

    I do not believe that for a minute (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    Perhaps that is so for you, but it is not for most.

    Parent
    Is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    it possible the people who back illegals getting DL are working toward a world with out borders, run by the UN?

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    Register to vote? What are you talking about? It's a driver's license, not citizenship. Legal residents can get licenses too.

    Parent
    It Is In MO n/t (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    DL (none / 0) (#78)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:31:35 PM EST
    is used as proof of residence...

    Parent
    That Is True (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    But as far as I know, it is the only document that is needed when registering to vote here in MO. That is all I needed when I had to register again after some problem with my registration a few years back and when I checked out the MO website it looks like it is still the case.

    Parent
    Tracking (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    Latino politicos want it, but illegals don't want it. They don't want to be tracked and identified, are they dumb. This massive data base with names, addresses etc. What is the incentive for getting one?

    They are afraid (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:56:27 PM EST
    The know Dobbsism is rampant.

    Parent
    I am not trying (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    to change your mind in any way, because you are a strong, democratic supporter, and we each will vote for our separate candidates because they appeal to us on the issues that we feel are the most important.  To try to argue you out of it would diminish that importance, so I will only speak for myself:

    I felt like Obama was waffling on this subject in the debate.  He even nodded his head and admitted that he had been inconsistent when talking about the issue.  To me, this does not bode well for where his priorities will be come the election.  While I think it's important that we talk about the immigration "problem," I think what Hillary Clinton said in Nevada touches me more than Obama's waffling:

    "No woman is illegal."

    That sentence cut straight into me, because that is the heart of the matter.  NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL.  If you want to talk about people illegally entering a country, let's look at our own history.  Let's look at how our economy became one of the strongest in the world: on the back of immigrants who fought and toiled for the American dream.

    And then we get the anti-immigration party, ala Bush & Co, and suddenly, it's a "problem."  

    Undocumented workers are not a problem.  They are an opportunity for a solution--one our economy desperately needs.  The Middle Class is the economic core of America.  Bringing people up from poverty, putting them in a position where they can afford to buy houses and cars and televisions and whatever, is how we became a super power.

    I think that bast*rds like Dobbs will make sure that immigration is an issue during the general election.  I also think that knowing not just "problems" but understanding that there are solutions gives Hillary the edge over anyone who runs against her.  She knows that we are not talking about "illegals."  We are talking about women and children and fathers and brothers who are trying to make a better life for their families.

    To me, that is what the democratic party is all about.

    Parent

    Desperate (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:02:08 PM EST
    This tells me Obama is desperate and not thinking of the GE, just trying to stay alive. You cannot register to vote unless you are a citizen, driver license is not like an entry drug to Citizenship.

    That is not supported by the facts (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    Do you know WHEN Obama first took this position?

    In Iowa.

    Parent

    When was the last time he mentioned it (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    though?  

    Parent
    When he was asked in the debate (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:22:35 PM EST
    Just so. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    Actually, IIRC, he voted for them in Illinois. n/t (none / 0) (#56)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    Even better (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    But I am of the school that positions taken as a PResidential candidate matter more.

    I am contrary that way.

    Parent

    nuclear leaks (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    Just read the NYTimes article on Obama's shady dealings with nuclear companies in IL. The pity is that we haven't seen these articles in the news for months. By now, the Obamanians are so committed to him, they won't look at any evidence against him. All this should have come out over the last two months, now it's probably too late.

    link? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    this is the link to the (none / 0) (#91)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:02:07 PM EST
    NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE on Nuclear energy and Obama

    Parent
    "voluntary" = Bush redux (none / 0) (#94)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:21:56 PM EST
    nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis
    .

    Parent
    Clinton And Durbin (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:34:59 PM EST
    Co-Sponsored the bill. The problem is that Obama said it passed, while campaigning in Iowa and it did not even come up for a vote. Here is more about it on an open thread so as go off topic here.

    Parent