That was no "off the cuff" remark or "mis-speak"...she's not W for pete's sake. Anything Hilary says is well-thought out. This was just as intentional as the white, working class comments from a few weeks ago.

And Obama took the high road on his reaction to it...which was exactly what he should have done. But don't for a second think that really believes her explanation.

Fourth, I think there's a remarkable contrast between the way the Obama campaign has handled this -- limiting their comments to saying that it was an unfortunate thing to say, but otherwise staying out of the way -- and the way the Clinton campaign handled the situation when Senator Obama made gaffes.  When Senator Obama, for example, said that poor people cling to their guns and relgion, the Clinton campaign did everything they could to try to paint him as an elitist who hates poor people, hates guns, and hates the religious.  The contrats is night and day.

In fairness to the Clinton campaign (I can't believe I just typed that) you act differently when you are trailing than when you are the front runner.  I suspect if Obama was in second place they would have jumped all over a simmilar comment made by Hillary the frontrunner.

True Jason - but it's worse - Obama was answering a question abour why certain people were acting bitterly towards campaigners - it wasn't even his idea - he was reacting to a question - and he said that after years of neglect from the Bushes and Clintons, they've come to feel the way they do, and they don't have time to focus on the minutia of supply-side economics vs social safety nets, etc and so on - they're just responding to gut-level stimulation that's being beamed into their homes via radio and TV, pushing anti-immigrant fears, and telling them to cling to guns and religion, and it's essential to get past that, and get to the root of things.

Funny how it was twisted into something completely different by Hillary.  On those grounds, I'm glad to see Hillary hoisted upon her own petard in this case. 

That was no "off the cuff" remark or "mis-speak"...she's not W for pete's sake.

I think Dubya knows what he's saying most of the time -- and means what he says.

Continued from another thread -

I was pleased to hear from a friend who just got home from Iraq that her and a lof of her fellow soldiers were Obama supporters. 

I have a lot of military folk in my family - dad, both grandfathers, grandmother, and I grew up thinking that the military demographic was largely democratic, like my family - but in recent years it's always stated as a given that the military is all republican.  Nice to hear we dems are still represented in the service!

The problem I have isn't exactly with her comment, just what on earth she MEANT to say.  How would the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination have ANYTHING to do with her primary race?

I think she was just attempting to point out other points in history where the nomination seemed a sure thing and then things changed.  I think it's simple as that.  I just can't believe her speech writers didn't think of how some people might misinterpret it.

That was no "off the cuff" remark or "mis-speak"...she's not W for pete's sake. Anything Hilary says is well-thought out. This was just as intentional as the white, working class comments from a few weeks ago.

You mean the ones about taking comfort in their guns and their religion in Pennsylvania?  If that's what you mean, I'd agree.

I don't think Hillary meant anything by the RFK comment -- it was just a stupid gaffe.  Obama had a gaffe yesterday stating that his great uncle was in the platoon that liberated Auschwitz, when he meant Buchenwald:  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/27/1068687.as px  

To me at least, both Clinton's and Obama's gaffes are non-story stories.

Now, Scott McClellan's revelations is a story:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/