Hasta La Vista, Hillary!

Think of it this way: From now on, whenever politicians want to avoid taking a position on illegal immigration, all they have to do is say they agree with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Whenever they want to appear as if they are saying a lot without really saying anything, all they have to do is emulate Clinton's routine during the recent Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia.

When Clinton fumbled a question about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, her convoluted response spoke about much more than just whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to drive here legally — which, of course, they should — or whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York is crazy or courageous for trying to issue them driver's licenses in his state. It spoke about how exceedingly political the front-running Democrat really is.

We always suspected Clinton was two-faced, but never had we seen her try to wear both masks within a period of seconds and before a national audience. Such performances are only expected from magicians.

It took only one simple question about immigration to demonstrate the seemingly impenetrable Clinton armor has some cracks, after all.

To both sides of the immigration debate, her flip-flopping response was very telling. To anti-immigrant Republican conservatives, it showed that their movement has gained enough strength to make even the Democratic front-runner waver. But to Latino voters, this was also a clear demonstration that Clinton is not the champion they are looking for.

It's time for Latinos to say adios to Hillary.

She certainly didn't come across as someone who can be trusted to lead the fight toward true and comprehensive immigration reform that will deal with the reality of the 12 million illegal immigrants who are already here. In fact, she came across as someone who would sell them out for political expediency.

As Clinton explained she understands why some governors would want to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and why some other governors may not, it became blatantly obvious she was being disingenuous.

"Quiere estar con Dios y con el Diablo," we say in Spanish. "She wants to be with God and with the devil."

What we saw as Clinton fumbled the immigration question is clearly the materialization of an emerging wave of Democratic strategists who are advising the presidential candidates they should toughen their party's stance, or at least their image, on illegal immigration.

These Democratic consultants believe the anti-immigrant right has gained so much strength that Democratic candidates who fail to appear tough on immigration will be vulnerable to Republican attacks in the 2008 election.

It is purely a defensive posture.

If these Democrats chose to play offense, they would be going after the Republicans who have used mean-spirited scare tactics to divide this country over illegal immigration. They would be citing the countless times when key Republicans have led the bashing of illegal immigrants. They would be complaining about the GOP measures that tried to limit use of the Spanish language, proving their xenophobic problem is with all Latinos, not just illegal immigrants.

But we don't hear the Democrats going to war to win the Latino vote. Democrats are not even actively campaigning for the Hispanic vote. And that's because, unfortunately, they believe they have won it already.

Some campaign strategists are telling the Democratic candidates — considering the way Republicans have behaved — Latino voters have no choice but to vote for Democrats. In other words, Democratic strategists are projecting that the Latino vote can be taken for granted.

Democratic candidates are being told that so long as they don't provoke a Latino backlash, which is highly unlikely, they should appear to be tougher on illegal immigration.

What we saw in the Philadelphia debate was the fight between the liberal who Clinton has always been on immigration and the new, tougher-on-immigration presidential candidate she is being poorly advised to become. In fact, although some of her opponents were quick to accuse her of flip-flopping, they were not quick to explain their own positions on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Yet even when Clinton was given an opportunity to take a clearer and more definitive stand in a CNN interview a few days later, she was equally evasive and uninspiring. When asked to explain whether she agrees with governors who believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to drive, she ducked the question again: "It depends on what state they're in. It depends upon what (governors) think the risks are," Clinton said on CNN. "The governor of New York has a lot of immigrants."

That's the kind of aggravating answer that exposes her as a hypocrite and doesn't win her any supporters on either side of this issue.

You have to wonder what makes her do it. Is she playing the tougher-on-immigration card because she buys the argument that she could be portrayed as weak on immigration in the general election race?

Let's get real: Her debate performance and her continual efforts to speak from both sides of her mouth on this issue surely will not bring her support among the conservatives who already despise her. But it could cost her significant support among Latinos, who obviously have to look for another leader who can defend their issues with a little more punch, courage and conviction.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.