Look, I don't have any trouble with Edwards, Obama, et al trying to take Hillary down in the last debate. I had just about given up on anybody actually trying. And I acknowledge that they drew blood at the end of the debate, when they had Hillary falling all over herself trying to defend, yet distance herself from, the policies of her ally Eliot Spitzer. But something was bothering about the whole affair afterward, and then it struck me..."Splunge!"
For those uninitiated to vintage Monty Python, they had a notable skit in which a corporate head was in a meeting with his board, and asked them all what they thought of his new idea--which was something stupid that I can't recall now. The first advisor said it was "great", and the director rightfully accused him of being a "yes-man" ("I hate yes-men!") and promptly fired him. Another criticized the plan, and was fired as well. Another, mute and tremulous, was tongue-tied, and was fired for being "indecisive". A fourth simply ran and jumped out of the window. The fifth (Michael Palin if I recall) responded by impulsively blurting out "Splunge!" When the boss asked him what "splunge" meant, he answered, "That means its a good idea, but it could use improvement...and I'm NOT being indecisive!" The boss accepted this answer, and the remaining board members likewise responded "Splunge for me, too!"
So of course, that's what Hillary tried to do last night. Fair enough. But what exactly is the immigration stance of Edwards, or Obama, or Dodd, or any other Democratic candidate besides the moonbeam crew (i.e. Gravel and Kucinich)? As near as I can tell, it's "splunge" as well.
My wife has asked me this question as well, and my response has been that the Democrats have as a rule avoided this whole issue, since the status quo seems to be reasonably acceptable to the Democratic base. "Splunge" is pretty much my stance as well, since on the one hand I don't like the fact that the immigrant work pool drives down the working wage, yet I don't want to kick people out of the country, yet the law is the law, and should we REALLY give driver's licenses to nominal illegals....???
I think the real coup of this debate is that the field scored points against Hillary on an issue that they can't address deicsively themselves. As long as they're running for the Democratic nomination, where the issue isn't sexy-hot like it is for the Repugs, they're OK--but what about the general election? How can Obama, or Edwards, or any of the others differentiate themselves from Hillary, or Spitzer? What do you Hillary-haters out there think would have been the RIGHT answer on this question?