So. Did Clinton evade? Yes, a bit. Did she equivocate? A little. (As Josh Marshall points out on TPM, “She actually grappled with the issue and pointed to the apparent necessity of the policy. But as soon as it came to ‘endorsing’, which here meant embracing the logical extension of everything she just said, she pulled back.”) But did Clinton, as Dodd (and, later, Edwards and Obama) suggested, contradict herself? No, she didn’t. Clinton didn’t say that she supported Spitzer’s controversial policy. She never said, onstage, “it makes sense,” as Dodd tries to spin it. Nor, actually, did she make that claim to the body Russert referred to as “the Nashua, New Hampshire, editorial board” (actually, it was the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph newspaper). Here’s what Clinton did say, according to the New York Daily News:

‘I know exactly what Gov. Spitzer’s trying to do and it makes a lot of sense, because he’s trying to get people out of the shadows,’ she said. ‘He’s trying to say, “Okay, come forward and we will give you this license.’”

It’s hard to see the inconsistency here. Clinton was saying, in the Nashua interview, only that it makes sense for Spitzer to try to account for undocumented workers—not that she supports every detail of his proposed policy for doing that. Which is exactly what she said, only with more detail and context, in last night’s debate.

Besides which, to be fair, what else could Clinton have said in answer to Russert’s question? It would have been both politically foolish and intellectually dishonest of her to cast, in effect, an up-or-down vote on an incredibly complex (and controversial) issue, to respond with the simple “yes” or “no” that is, apparently, the only answer that would mollify Russert and the other candidates. (Just as it would have been foolish and disingenuous of her to “pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president,” as Russert was trying to coax her into doing earlier in the debate.) If anything, Clinton fell victim last night to the Kerry Trap: she was offering nuance in a forum that rewards sound bites. She was giving a gray-shaded answer to a question that seemed designed to trap her in its black-and-white bars—essentially, to turn all the predictions about the debate being Obama’s Night into self-fulfilling prophesies.

And speaking of, what did Obama have to say about the driver’s license issue?

OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face. Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what’s popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It’s about setting a direction for the country, and that’s what I intend to do as president.

WILLIAMS: Are you for it or against it?

OBAMA: I think that it is a — the right idea. And I disagree with Chris, because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer. That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

Which seems more evasive than Clinton’s answer. But never mind.

It’s one thing—and, of course, a good thing—to be calling out candidates when they’re being less than straightforward about their stances on important issues. But it’s another to be selective in doing so. Last night’s debate brought an unfortunate spin to the term “pack journalism”: reporters and candidates alike seemed on the prowl when it came to Clinton. (Indeed, it was hard not to picture, both during and after the debate, Discovery Channel footage of a pack of hungry lions stalking a gazelle.) But Clinton generally evaded the traps set out for her. Blog bloviation notwithstanding, last night was by no means her Dean Scream.

• 1
• 2