Blog for Democracy

The Downside of Hillary – More Obama missteps

So, I almost hate to post this, but may I just say that the immigration law in Arizona is extremely popular among the electorate and suing Arizona is NOT the way to resolve the issue. All that’s going to do is fire up the Tea Party and friends on an issue we cannot win on. That’s the hand we are dealt though, but announcing the Justice Department is going to sue Arizona for the first time on TELEVISION IN ECUADOR is not going to go over well with anyone.

Hillary did the best thing for the interview, which was not the best thing for the country or her administration. Oh, well.

Posted

in

by

Stefan

Tags:

Comments

17 responses to “The Downside of Hillary – More Obama missteps”

  1. Sara Avatar
    Sara

    Drew, the federal government has other options besides suing. Passing legislation prohibiting this sort of profiling, for one thing. And if it wouldn’t pass (and it wouldn’t), then many will question whether the executive branch should be directing its legal forces at a state government. There are times when that is appropriate, but not every time. There are also procedural reasons (standing, etc.) why the federal government might not be the best litigant to challenge this law.

  2. BEZERKO Avatar
    BEZERKO

    A mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe she was speaking out of turn or comitted some sort of breach of protocol. I agree with Grift, it’s the right thing to do. The Mexican/latino community is just like everyone else, they have sattelite dishes and computers, they’ll see it on tellevision and YouTube. The latino and Mexican American vote is going to be huge, even in Georgia.

  3. Mel Avatar
    Mel

    This may be an over simplification, and for sure a delayed reaction, but Hillary doesn’t make mistakes like this. She’s no Biden.

  4. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    I’m curious to know what the federal government should do to protect the people of Arizona from their abusive government, if not sue it. Nothing?

    Granted, a lawsuit against racism might anger racists, but I think that’s a risk that the federal government should be willing to take.

  5. JMPrince Avatar
    JMPrince

    Somewhat related on the general topic & ‘How the other half lives’ & all that:
    http://www.migrationinformation.org/?mpi

    JMP

  6. JMPrince Avatar
    JMPrince

    Basically my point too, if I can understand you here too Z. We never know, but it’s good to suspect nearly everything. I think I’m warming to the open C-Span conference versions now though.

  7. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    Zaid,

    Ah yes, remember you when explained the conference committee to us and how the public option would be included in the conference version and then that could not be filibustered? And you implied you would have some role in that? How did that turn out? I cannot remember.

    Sometimes we do not know what will happen.

  8. JMPrince Avatar
    JMPrince

    Too much else going on too, perhaps. But it’ll still come back to bite too, so watch out for it. jMP

  9. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    Ya just discovered this? It’s super old and no one really cares anymore, which I think means Hilary didn’t make much of a misstep at all.

  10. JMPrince Avatar
    JMPrince

    In Re Hillary, it was largely an unavoidable question, but perhaps it needed to be finessed better. But she & the admin. will be viciously attacked no matter what they do. I’ve got little idea of how the politics play out here with the dueling rationales & surveys & polling. I think long term, ‘doing the right thing’ has some definite advantages, and can be a decent move for progressives. But we don’t live in that world just yet. It’s all short term plays for vicious partisan advantage. Witness the battle royale for the simple jobless & state aid bill being filibustered in the Senate for the last few months. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3219

    So make no mistake about it. This is not about what the majority wants or feels. Or what might be best or better from a purely policy perspective. That’s sadly a perspective that’s been gone for a generation by now. It’s now always about a small but determined minority who’ve already proven that they’re perfectly willing to take our economy & the rest of the world’s down with them. Just to ‘prove a point’. (What exactly that is besides utter destruction & hatred, we don’t know).

    So I’m not sure how this works or ‘games’. Neither do these smart guys:
    thedemocraticstrategist.org/

    There’s plenty more to say on the topic but I’ve already far exceed some folks (Ed’s) limited reading capacity. JMP

  11. Sara Avatar
    Sara

    Tipping the administration’s hand was a dumb move by Hillary, and I think suing to stop the law is probably a dumb move too (plenty of local interest groups representing folks with actual standing will already file challenges out the wazoo), but I also disagree that the immigration battle for hearts and minds is unwinnable. Arizona loves its anti-immigrant laws in large part due to the negative impacts of illegal immigration they have felt as one of the primary entry points, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the country views the law the same way. Also, once people realize this law will essentially be an unenforceable invitation to massive litigation that every sherriffs’ department and state and local governments will be forced to defend, they may not love it so much. The litigation costs are going to be HUGE and could bankrupt many small towns and counties.

  12. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    Updated, thanks.

  13. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    I think it’s Ecuador.

  14. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    I view the Peruvian thing as a meh. If the right wing noise machine hasn’t started spewing about it yet, I don’t think it has too much traction. Of course they are too busy trying to convert apples into oranges vis a vis the gulf oil spill as Katrina.

    And I don’t necessarily think its a holding action.

    Here’s the funny thing about most people and polls. Most react in a certain way and a little while later could care less.

    Sure, I believe that most people would say they agree with the Arizona law. Then, a month after the nasty court room battle settles it, their outrage is gone and they think either “thank god I’ve got a job” or “Jesus Christ, I need a job”.

    Very similar to healthcare. When did the polling start to level out and actually begin to climb? When they finally got the damned thing past.

    People (and especially independents) despise incompetence more than anything. I honestly believe most people’s attitude would be “okay, if you’re going to do it, do it quickly, do it well and then get back to the things I really care about”.

  15. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    I am not arguing that the law is correct as a policy or whether it should be attacked by the administration, I am suggesting the avenue they are using for that attack should be well though out and not rolled out in an interview with peruvian television. Do you disagree with that?

    My larger point is that Obama needs to be fighting winning battles, not holding actions. He needs to be the one taking action.

  16. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    Meant to say fiscal conservatives! BIG WHOOPSIE!

  17. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    I’m going to disagree.

    First it’s the right thing to do.

    Second, your analysis of the “tea party” is completely incorrect. This is the issue that will cause the great “tea party”/libertarian schism.

    When the Arizona Tea Party backed the law, many libertarians and some other state tea parties (rightly) called them out. Libertarians have always been about as open a border as possible. If the “tea party” movement attempts to embrace nativism, you will see more and more disaffected social conservatives abandon them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *