Elliot Spitzer announced this morning that he is abandoning his plan to provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.  The announcement comes the day before the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate at UNLV to be broadcast on CNN.  This means there is less likelihood that Hillary Clinton will have to answer questions about her position on the issue.

The question of whether or not Hillary supports Spitzer’s plan has haunted the Clinton campaign ever since it was asked at the last Democrat Debate.  Hillary managed to do a flip flop in the course of less than two minutes.  The fall-out from the debate debacle has continued for two weeks, her poll numbers are falling and the nomination, once considered a sure thing, is slipping slowly away from her.

As the debate draws nearer, there has been speculation about whether Wolf Blitzer, or the other Democratic nominees, would have the guts to ask Mrs. Clinton for clarification on the issue.  With Spitzer’s announcement, however, it would seem that the issue is off the table.  At least, it seems that there would be little point in phrasing it the same way.

Any questions about immigration will need to be cased in a broader, more hypothetical, manner.  This saves Hillary from looking ridiculous trying to frame an answer to include all of her previous positions.  Also, it will allow her to lather the blame onto the Bush administration as she tried to do in the last debate.

Moving the debate back into abstracts will work in favor of the Clinton campaign.  One has to wonder if the was Spitzer’s intention in withdrawing his plan.  In any case, Hillary has shown her true colors and as long as we can remember who she is, it won’t matter who runs to pull difficult issues out of her way.

Read more about Spitzer’s announcement here: N. Y. Govenor abandons driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, aired on Fox News yesterday, Mitt Romney made a serious mistake. During the course of a discussion about the qualifications of Hillary Clinton, he used the word “intern.” Not only that, but he used it to make a valid point that had nothing to do with her husband or embarrasing public scandals.

What he said was, “And I think the greatest drawback, beyond the direction she’d take us, is that she’s never run anything. She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector running a business or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything.

And the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things.”

So the Clinton tag team did what it does best. It got offended.

On MSNBC Live this morning, Andrea Mitchell decided to ask Howard Wolfson, a Clinton insider, about the comment and Romney’s intent.

Mitchell: “This is not the first time he’s used the word ‘intern’ in reference to Senator Clinton’s alleged lack of qualifications, so it’s an intentional point. Do you think he’s trying to provoke her by using that?”

WOLFSON: “I think it’s unfortunate. You know, Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States senator. She has represented this country abroad in dozens and dozens of countries. She’s been a — an advocate for families and children, one of the nation’s foremost advocates for families and children for 35 years. And so, you know, Mitt Romney wants to engage in a campaign of insults, that’s his choice. Americans want to hear issues and ideas and not these kind of insults.”

Pointing out Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidates lack of experience is not an insult. It goes directly to the heart of the issue. Certain lessons are best learned by the hard knocks of experience. Do we really want a president learning those lessons with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance? Hillary’s accomplishments are meager. Her resume for President of the United States is remarkably bare. Some would argue that it is blank. Even her most ardent supporters cannot offer up an instance where she has successfully implemented a policy or drafted a piece of legislation.

Instead, they rely on the image of her as a “battered woman;” a victim of male brutality and oppression. Whenever the slightest hint of criticism hits the airwaves, Clinton and her supporters are there to reassure us that her opponents would only do this because she is a woman, because they hated her husband, or because they just want to revel in the smut of her family’s dirty laundry.

As it turns out, there really aren’t too many succinct ways to describe a person who takes a job in order to gain work experience. These days, in the United States of America, the common term for such a person is an “intern.” It was this point that Romney was trying to illustrate when he used the word. The nasty pictures it conjured were all painted by the Clintons and their friends.

“Well there’s no question in my view that one of the ways you instill family values is by having the White House be a place that demonstrates family values,” Romney said earlier this week.

At a forum hosted by the George Bush Presidential Library earlier this year, a young man began the question and answer portion by energetically praising Romney’s values and integrity. Romney responded with the quip, “That’s my son, by the way.”

Anyone who comes within arms length of the Romney campaign will notice the prominent role that his wife and sons play in his life. It is also apparent to anyone willing to scratch the surface that they have the kind of love and respect for their father that makes them willing to be an enthusiastic part of his bid for the presidency. What parent doesn’t want their sons, or daughters, to have that kind of confidence in them?

Romney continued his comments by saying, “And… I think during the last Clinton presidency the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation’s culture.”

Almost anyone old enough to vote will remember the nationwide refrain in the late 90s that went something like this: “Well, maybe he isn’t a good person in his private life but he’s doing a good job as president.  And his personal life is none of our business anyway.”

I heard this sentiment repeated so often that I wondered if people were actually trying to convince themselves. After all, Clinton’s personal life caused him to commit perjury, encourage others to perjure themselves, obstruct justice in a case against him, and be impeached by the Congress of the United States. It has also been suggested by commentators like Rush Limbaugh (actually, he’s the only one I know of first hand but I believe he makes a valid point) that the lack of personal integrity in Clinton’s life both before and during his presidency made it difficult for him to aggressively command the armed forces and counter the terrorist threat against our nation. *

These serious consequences were in addition to the fact that the Clinton escapades were reported with lavish detail throughout the nation, leaving a trail of disgrace and depravity surrounding the White House where we once had thought to shelter dignity. Romney, of course, realizes the enormity of leading a nation by example. He continued in his remarks, “you’re gonna be under a microscope and at least during the time you’re in the White House you ought to live by a high standard, because the world is looking at you, you’re representing not only yourself but your country.  And the kids of America are looking at you.” In this election we can decide much about the future of our nation’s families. How will we define marriage and family? What will we teach our children about morality and personal responsibility? What limits will we place on the sanctity of life? With these issues at stake, we couldn’t do better than to elect a man who has pledged to lead the crusade for family values by example.

*This is in reference to commentary done on the Rush Limbaugh show around the time the film “The Path to 9-11” aired on ABC in 2006. Comments were based on information quoted from Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.”