Aside from stretching the truth re her husband's campaign, I think the other important issue lost among the knee-jerking was the question of why Kennedy when there were any of a number of historical references to late primaries.

I think Stephen Ducat of HuffPo got it spot on. Her first "gaffe" occurred just *days* after a poll was published related to Americans' concern for Obama's safety.

So it wasn't that she was saying "hey, I need to be ready just in case." It was really more of a "hey, I know this is something that Americans are concerned about and I can exploit to my advantage."

She was repeating a talking point. Just like Bosnia-gate, she wasn't called on it at first, so it gets repeated.

I originally thought her remark was a timeline issue, but after reading Stephen Ducat's thoughtful response on HuffPo, I see it differently. I see it as a calculated talking point that she began using in March related to some polling that came our re Obama's safety. And like her remarks re Bosnia, once committed to memory, they lay there, popping out where appropriate, until the forces aligned (in this case, video of the actual response).

The other point made here on Salon (the other half of the talking point wasn't much more legit) fits into this same kind of frame.

So I agree the remark was not what some imply, but on the other hand, I don't think it was just an unfortunate reference. It was a calculated one that finally (and reasonably IMO) backfired, just as her Bosnia remarks did.

"What certain alleged Obama supporters have done with Clinton's RFK remarks is just an awful thing for Democrats to do to a Democrat, and it's not going over well."

Yikes. I've made it thru 80 some pages of these comments (I keep telling myself to just walk away, but keep being drawn back).

I'm really disappointed that this is your takeaway from all these comments (at least up to page 75 or so). It's still all about what others have done with her remarks, and you see no merit whatsoever in any of the rational (c'mon admit it...they are not all screeching rabid posts) arguments that this just might not have been just an unfortunate reference? Bummer.

You end your McClellan blog with "I don't believe that sensitivity is what made her remarks a five-day political story. I think that was the result of the Obama campaign lighting a match, and its friends in the media fanning the flames."

Sigh. If you really had read all 1500 of those comments, it boggles the mind that you don't see any Clinton responsibility in making her remarks a five-day political story.

I grant you that media fanning the flames is at work here. It's become the norm rather than the exception, which is I guess what I find so troublesome about your apparent outrage. Why now? Why this particular instance?

After all, even if you cut Clinton total slack on the assassination remark, the rest of it falls completely apart, as many others have made clear. And as the commenters -- and the media -- note it sure seems goes to a pattern from this candidate.

But at this point, tagging this at the end of your McClellan blog (which I agree with BTW) indicates to this 50ish white woman that you appear to share with Clinton the inability to actually entertain the idea that you might be wrong.

While I agree with your points re the need to reach out to Hillary voters, I find your defense of her actions on Tuesday to be tiring. Good thing for us all that Charlie Rangel et al saw the bigger picture.

The phrase "dismaying temperament" is the one George Will applied to McCain in reference to his attack on SEC chairman Chris Cox. And to me, it describes McCain's churlishness at last night's debate. Couldn't look at Obama? Had a sneer on the better part of the night? Of course he did. He was PISSED that he was there. He expected his bailout stunt to have gotten him off the hook, and he didn't even have 24 hours to come to grips with having to do a 180 and show up after all.

I actually can empathize. I can't think of something I like less than looking stupid. It makes me grumpy and angry too. But I'm not running for president. And I won't have the nuke codes.

Will asked if a "dismaying temperament" can be fixed. After McCain's debate performance, I wouldn't be optimistic.

Nate Silvers has a really good response to this article, citing a number of problems with the analysis.

Read the whole thing. It's worth it!

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/bradley-effect-or-elephant-effect.html

Chris Cilizza has the details over at WaPo: http://twurl.nl/hjrn54

Oh eff, Firefox just ate my response, so I'm gonna do the abbreviated version. I'd love to see you step it up on Twitter like some of your peers:

• http://twitter.com/TheFix
• http://twitter.com/Shuster1600
• http://twitter.com/davidgregory
• http://twitter.com/craig_crawford
• http://twitter.com/jdickerson
• http://twitter.com/anamariecox

I think Chris Cilliza (The Fix) is doing it best, but the folks in the middle are trying to catch up. And you can't argue with the 40-50K followers that the last two have.

Anyways, just a suggestion! Love you here and on places like Hardball, so wouldn't mind seeing shorter Joan on Twitter!

I was just reading this over on the Daily Dish. In Ryan Lizza's puff piece:

[Emanuel's] task has been made no easier by Obama’s desire for bipartisanship, which Emanuel argues the press has misunderstood. “The public wants bipartisanship,” he said. “We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed.”

Word!