Citing her grasp of Washington politics, Hillary Clinton said yesterday that it was a "mistake" for her Democratic presidential opponents to outline specific plans to shore up the federal Social Security program. Any solution, she said, would come from bipartisan compromise.

"Most of my opponents are more than happy to throw out all their ideas," Clinton said at the Gunstock Lodge in Gilford, in response to a question about whether she'd consider more payroll taxes on higher-income earners. "I just know - maybe it's because I'm a student of history and I've been studying this - I know that eventually you've got to have a bipartisan commission. That's the only way we're going to resolve this."

Social Security has emerged as a flashpoint in the Democratic presidential contest, and several of Clinton's rivals have criticized her for failing to detail her Social Security proposals. Her refusal to specify her Social Security plans, they say, calls her candor into question.

But Clinton cast her position on Social Security as an asset rather than a liability, yesterday. She frequently describes herself as the most experienced candidate, the one with the political know-how to enact change. Although Clinton didn't mention her opponents by name yesterday, her comments were a clear dig at Barack Obama and John Edwards, both of whom have proposed raising the cap on payroll taxes for higher-income earners.

"I think all these are ideas a bipartisan commission has to look at," Clinton said, referring to raising the cap. "But I think it is a mistake for Democrats to be throwing these ideas out when we know we can't do anything unless Democrats and Republicans hold hands and jump together."

Clinton stressed the importance of fiscal responsibility, and told voters that she takes "a backseat to no one in my commitment to Social Security."

Obama and Edwards have said that they support increasing the amount of an individual's income subject to the Social Security tax. Currently, the tax is only levied against the first $97,500 of an individual's annual income. Edwards wouldn't impose an additional tax on those earning $98,000 to $200,000 annually, but would tax income above $200,000, said his spokeswoman, Kate Bedingfield.

"Social Security is a critical issue facing American families, and John Edwards believes that voters deserve to hear the truth and that they deserve to hear specifics," Bedingfield said.

Obama's plan could also include such a gap - called a "doughnut hole" - so that the additional tax only affects individuals earning well over $97,500.

"Unlike Sen. Clinton, Barack Obama has made a point of telling the American people exactly where he stands on ensuring the continued success of the Social Security system, and that's what he'll continue to do as president," Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin said.

Under the current system, the amount of Social Security benefits being doled out would likely exceed the amount of money being raised for the program in 2017, according to the boards of trustees for Social Security and Medicare. In 2041, the Social Security reserves would likely be exhausted.

In addition to taxing more income, there are numerous ways to sustain the program, including raising the retirement age or reducing benefits. In 2005, President Bush pushed for the creation of private retirement accounts. That plan, which Democrats opposed, failed.

Clinton assured voters yesterday that Social Security "is not in a crisis," and said that statements to the contrary are "Republican talking points that they use to try to privatize Social Security."

At this stage in the campaign, Clinton is wise not to outline specific Social Security proposals, said Wayne Lesperance, an associate professor of political science at New England College. "Social Security's the third rail of politics," he said. "Whatever idea you come up with, somebody somewhere is not getting what they were promised."

Although the criticism coming from Clinton's opponents - that she won't offer straight answers on Social Security and other issues - could harm her, "she wants to be very careful not to say anything that her opponents could seize on," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire.

Single page