Philip Gailey of the St. Petersburg Times has this to say about Senator Clinton's approach to Social Security reform:

[I]n a candidate debate in Iowa last week, Clinton was asked how she would protect Social Security. After she ruled out raising the retirement age or reducing benefits, she was asked if that meant she was leaving higher taxes on the table. "No, not at all," Clinton said. Her solution: return to the economic prosperity of her husband's administration. That was not a serious answer, it was a pathetic cop-out.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz also weighs in:

Clinton's initial response to Woodruff on Thursday night demonstrated she's not ready to talk seriously yet about one of the biggest issues looming as her Baby Boom generation moves into retirement.

It seems that Clinton's plan for fixing Social Security is to grow the economy.  This, she says, will prevent the government from continued borrowing against the trust fund. 

But doesn't this line of reasoning bring up more questions than it answers?  For example, aren't people curious about how Clinton plans to protect the surplus and what she intends to do with the money?  And isn't it odd that she voted against Senator DeMint's amendment earlier this year to ensure that revenues from the Social Security tax are used for no program other than Social Security? 

Gailey and Balz are right that Clinton isn't serious about fixing Social Security.  But that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to abide her political cowardice.