So - - now what do you think of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign?

Mrs. Clinton garnered lots of negative attention two debates ago, when she faced six other Democratic opponents at Drexel University in Philadelphia. The “big story” from that event was that she equivocated on, among other things, the issue of granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and that Obama and Edwards aggressively challenged her on her equivocations.

But if the Philly debate was about the boys ganging-up on Hillary, then the Las Vegas debate seems to have been about defining the current Democratic race as primarily a Clinton versus Obama sort of thing. Edwards certainly possessed some polling momentum in Iowa, going in to the debate. But his showing in Las Vegas was lackluster, if for now other reason than he was seated off to the side of the stage, whereas Clinton and Obama were in close proximity of one another.

If Edwards and Obama can create such a firestorm by confronting Clinton on the driver’s license thing - - a firestorm that was still smoldering nearly three weeks after the fact - - then this begs a question: can any of the Republican candidates make any headway by confronting Mrs. Clinton’s economic proposals?

In the Philadelphia debate, Mrs. Clinton got caught. Caught equivocating, caught playing an issue from both sides, caught giving a “non-answer answer” to a question that is important to Americans of all political stripes.

Yet, thus far Mrs. Clinton doesn’t seem to have gotten “caught” in her assault on free-market economic basics.

Recall that in June of this year, CNN televised a “faith and values” forum in which they showcased Clinton, Obama and Edwards, exclusively, talking about how their “faith” impacts their life’s work in politics.

It was in this forum that Mrs. Clinton made some extraordinary statements about her views on economic policy, and social welfare.

When quizzed about issues of poverty and the environment, Mrs. Clinton was critical of nearly every sector of our society- - she informed the audience that, in her view, the “adult society” has failed; “churches have failed;” “the free market has failed;” “we’ve all failed” - - and to make things right, “something needs to be taken away from some people.”

Think about these words. “Something needs to be taken away from some people.” Who is she talking about? Who in our society should have things taken away from them? And who among us is so just, so righteous, so brilliant that they can fairly and equitably make these determinations? Continued...