Rivals Rattle Clinton on the Evasiveness Issue

Tuesdays are my long days at work, so I did not see this week's Democratic presidential debate. I've been watching clips of the candidates' responses on television, and the newspaper commentaries are starting to trickle in.

This Los Angeles Times article discusses the new focus on evasiveness among Hillary Clinton's rivals, a weakness which might turn out to be the frontrunner's Achilles heel:

After searching for ways to rattle Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and stem her momentum in the Democratic presidential race, her chief rivals believe they have found an opening: what they cast as her evasiveness on several key issues.

The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wasted little time Wednesday suggesting that the New York senator's performance in Tuesday's debate unmasked her as a candidate unwilling to commit to concrete plans.

On at least five issues raised in the debate, Clinton replied in ways that left it unclear what she meant or what action she might take.

That practice has worked for her in the past, permitting her to avoid positions that might antagonize voters, particularly the less partisan ones important to victory in the general election.

But the limitations and potential perils of her approach were driven home at the debate in Philadelphia.

In comments likely foreshadowing the shape of the Democratic contest in coming weeks, top Obama strategist David Axelrod said: "We're going to spell out positions on issues and demand others do as well. One of the things that people are looking for is someone . . . who will be forthright with them and not pass everything through a political calculator. It's a distinction in this race."

A memo issued by the Edwards campaign was more blunt, charging that Clinton was not "telling the truth to the American people."

Republican presidential contender Rudolph W. Giuliani eagerly joined in Wednesday, taking a swipe at Clinton that echoed complaints from her Democratic rivals.

"She was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences," Giuliani said in a radio interview. "And then, by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I've never quite seen that before."

Clinton was wishy-washy on Social Security reform, and she flipped-flopped on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. As usual, Clinton dissembled on Iraq and the war on terror:

On Iraq, she said she was for ending the war, but also said an unspecified number of troops may be left in place for an ongoing mission of battling Al Qaeda fighters in that country.

The shift to pointing out Clinton's evasiveness is probably too late to slow her campaign juggernaut (an effort as difficult as stopping a runaway train, the metaphor I've used to describe the disastrous implications of a Hillary presidency for American politics).

See also additional analyses of Clinton's debate performance at the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times.