Edwards immigration stance muddled as HRC's

Immigration policy experts on both sides of the debate say they're puzzled by Edwards’ stance, which appears to hinge on blurring the distinction between state and federal powers.

"He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn't support the Spitzer plan because it doesn't include a path to citizenship," said Edwards' deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton.

"That's not a rational position — Eliot Spitzer couldn't ever offer somebody a path to citizenship," said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform.

"I don't know if they think you're stupid or what they think," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigrantion Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop.

Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position.

That is "sort of like saying I oppose the confederate flag in Southern states because there's not a corresponding flag burning amendment to it. It's nonsensical," Sharry said.