Let's not abbreviate the issue: it's clear that Clinton is not in any way calling directly for something to happen to Obama. But we also cannot divorce her comments from her public stature, her intelligence, her responsibility as a leader, or our history. So even with the most charitable interpretation, I think her negligence is disqualifying.

Well, the Jesse Jackson SC and RFK lines are Baby Boomers' historical references.

Why didn't Obamaites say it was beyond the pale when Olbermann suggested a SD go into a room and kill Clinton? Race does not trump gender. These are double standards.

Howard Dean didn't mean to sound like a lunatic when he let out that infamous scream.

But it still ended his candidacy.  

I was hoping for a Obama/Clinton ticket, but I just don't think it could happen now.  

I can admit that she made a dumb comment.  Great politicians do that.

Regardless, the 1968 analogy is bad.  There were what, 12 primaries that year?  It is like talking about the primary of 1870 or something.  DIfferrent rules back then.

different.

You Clinton apologist are somthing else

Thank you, Todd

I agree, todd.  But on the other hand, simple respect to the Kennedy family at this point should have prevented her from making such comments.

To say nothing of the fact that she can easily SUSPEND her campaign just as Romney did--so that if Obama has a Spitzer moment or the unthinkable does happen--we do have a backup choice.

Making such an argument as a reason for staying fully in the race is simply asinine regardless.  And that's the biggest problem for me.

I agree with you Todd that the context is important in understanding what she meant. and I say this as a strong Obama supporter. I have too much respect for hillary Clinton to assume that she meant that she hoped for or even considered Obama's assassination.

That said, at this stage of things, I think this is the final nail, final straw, final whatever you want to say, for her presidential (and possibly vice-presidential) aspirations.

The Clintonites are becoming as delusional as the Bush freaks were a few years ago.  It's sad, really.

Were the Rev. Wright's comments taken "in context" of all the other sermons he gave?

Were Obama's "bitter" comments taken "in context" in regard to what his intentions behind them were?

All the "context" in the world don't make her comments any less disgusting.

Nice try to justify, but no thanks.

Thank you, Todd.

I've been waiting for a front page poster to combat this insanely trumped up scandal with a dose of reality.

Regardless of whether it was an honest screw-up, you just can't go there.  Hillary is smart enough to know that.  She has no one to blame but herself.

but as an experiened and seasoned politician this comment is a major gaffe. She should know better than to use words that can set of a media firestorm. She should know better than to invoke Bobby Kennedy when their are better and less controversial examples. She should know better when people like me fear the worst for Senator Obama.

As a politician she mad a huge blunder.

What surprises me even more is the attacks on Obama and his supporters by some Clinton supporters on Josh's front page. They even attacked Josh directly. Why the hate?

The same people who recc'ed numerous diaries on Bittergate, Fingergate and Keith Olbermanngate are the same ones crying foul for taking words out of context.

What's with the OUTRAGE about the outrage?

It just reeks of hipocrisy.

You are half right.

Her point was the race was still going on in June (Bill's 92) and anything can happen, Kennedy assassination.  

It does not move her away from the comment.

No parsing will change the 4th reference she has made to potential assassination.  

There are two ways to read her comments.

1) Anything can happen (Assassination!) so I'll stay in

2) Contests often go through June

I lean more towards her meaning #2 but it was totally idiotic for her to use the RFK assassination in her example.  Twice apparently since she said the same thing a couple weeks ago.

I also think it's likely that she and her campaign have discussed the possibility of an Obama assassination, and used that as a reason to stay in the race.  I am NOT saying that she would wish that to happen, just that they have discussed the possibility.  

Maybe that is another reason this RFK example keeps popping out of her mouth.

Hillary needs a vacation.  Bill needs a vacation.  Barack needs a vacation.  Michelle needs a vacation.  Every last staff person on both campaigns needs a vacation.  Pundits need a vacation.  Bloggers most definately need a vacation.  The only people who don't need a vacation are in Congress (candidates excepted)-- all they ever do is take vacations.  

People say & do really stupid things when they have been campaigning pratically nonstop for over 16 months.  People are not as effective when they have been going this long.  As an Obama supporter I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but Hillary, and EVERYBODY else, get some rest and get some perspective and let's come back and begin the campaign to beat McSame.

If she's just trying to make the point that some primaries can go into June, then she has many more examples from which to choose. Why Why Why would she use this one?

It's just fucked up in every way, especially given the fact that prominent black leaders of the past generally did not survive into their prime.

When you have black families across America watching his victory speech in Iowa saying "Holy Shit he just might do it" and then becoming scared for his life, scanning the room for anything suspicious. Whatever the hell she meant, it was stupid all around.

And the response from the Obama camp is pushing Clinton supporters even further away. How am I supposed to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, if this is the kind of exploitive shit they peddle against someone I admire fiercely. What I see happening her is the Obama camp exploiting RFK's assassination to justify further calls for Clinton to leave the race.

I didn't think I could hold the campaign in lower regard than I did already, but for me, Josh Orton and the rest of the Obama supporters have now stepped too far over the line of decent behavior for me to take them seriously as progressives. They don't even know that the respectful thing to do - if you  admire RFK - is to let this go. This is an inartful statement but they're exploitation of it is far uglier than anything they accuse Clinton of.

No, Clinton shouldn't leave the race over this. This is nothing more than inartful statement of historical fact.

Her clumsy comment was also a bad analogy.  1968?  And it obviously has some sensitive associations.  So the worst one can say is that she has a poor understanding of presidential political history and poor judgement at times.

She apologized and we can move on.  

malice or read anything between the lines in Hillary's comment, and neither should we. She apologized, we should let it go. In the grand scheme this is about on par with Obama's "bitter" comment. Not the best choice of words, but not malicious either.

Todd, while I appreciate your point, I have to side with Josh on this.  No context justifies bringing up the assassination of RFK at a time where violence against the first AA candidate is a real concern and when Ted Kennedy is suffering his own health problems.  It is a nearly indefensible poor choice of example.

Context and intention can only mitigate the level of offense over this; there's no way that context or intention can excuse it.

Sorry, Too Bad.
The words came out and nothing else matters.  Her apology is worthless and her extra explanations mean nothing.

After all, this is exactly how she and her followers treated Obama after the bittergate comments.  

I will cut her ZERO slack on this instance, and she deserves none.

I notice that she apologized to the Kennedys, but not Obama.  Why doesnt she apologize to him?  This is already being picked up as odd on the MSM.

Goodbye VP Slot.  Bad taste to have someone on the ticket who has speculated on your death.

I have a deep-seated bias against politicians who reference assassination when speaking about their rationale for remaining in the race.  Especially after their campaigns have repeatedly stated that "anything can happen."

<i.For me, honestly, it was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of historical references and as her apology makes clear, she would agree</i>

I'm sure she would. I'm sure she would also agree with the diaries here that claim she's the bestestest candidate ever and has been robbed of the nomination.

But the fact is, this remark, like "hard working whites",  reveals the bitterness and the opportunism that underly her campaign. She's trying to scare people (SDs especially) any way she can, tripping over herself as she tries to pander and hit hot-buttons.

It could charitably be called unedifying.

She's not going to be the nominee. She needs, at the very least, to take a few days off, get some perspective, and if she wants to run out the clock for the sake of symbolism, fine. But she needs to stop trying to tear the party apart as an act of revenge.

You know, people who are old enough have certain time stamps.
Like, what were you doing when JFK was assassinated?
Anyone over the age of six remembers where he or she was at the moment they learned of the assassination.  Same goes for MLK and RFK.  For Hillary Clinton, it was a time stamp - i.e. the California primary ran into June because school was just finished for her. (Just finishing for me - a grade schooler)

Of course, nothing the Clintons can say is right.
And nothing the Obamas say is wrong.

Obama's "Bataan Death March" reference got hardly a peep out of the media; yet, it was far more intentional than Hillary Clinton's RFK reference.

I am sick of this campaign -
And sicker of the Obama folks.

After watching the video I've concluded that she was NOT making the argument that a potential assassination was a good reason to stay in the race this long. She was making the argument, as suggested here, that the '68 race lasted until June so why should she be so quick to get out (kind of ignores the fact that we have a much more accelerated primary schedule, but that's beside the point).

Unfortunately, I think she let her mouth get ahead of her brain and she introduced the topic of the assassination into the conversation.

So, I don't think she was making a dark hint. I do, however, think she was being incredibly stupid in not realizing how bad it would look to be even talking about this in the way she did. I bet if you polled the question you find a significant minority of Democrats are seriously worried about Obama not surviving this campaign. But few people want to talk about this openly just because of the jinx factor.

It was stupidity, not perfidity. But it was the kind of stupidity that demonstrates that she is not fit to run for the office of president.

It's not about context. Some things just aren't said in politics. One such topic is assassination. That's something that historians talk about. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving a history lesson, she was trying to make a political point to justify her continued campaign.

Not only that, but as a commentor pointed out in another thread, she said the same thing in an interview with Time in March:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

So this assassination line wasn't merely a gaffe; it was a pre-planned reference to a horrible moment in American political history.

if this turns out not to be the first time she's said it?

Lyndon Johnson (as a write-in) beat Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire on March 12, 1968.  That's six weeks later than the date of this year's Super Tuesday primaries, which included California.

So analogizing today to 1968, even without the horrible misstatement about RFK, is completely unfounded.

I don't think for a second she meant it. I have doubts that someone of her intelligence who has been in politics as long as she has would drop that concept into an interview without knowing full well how it might be taken, but I agree with howardpark that its probably just exhaustion - but its not a great excuse.

Regardless, this is exactly the kind of thing she didn't need to say at this juncture. She probably just tossed her VP aspirations out the window along with any bargaining power she had. Not the best way to go out.

No one (as far as I can see) is accusing Clinton of threatening Obama. It's coming up as a strawman a lot, but no one's actually saying it.

We are angry that she brought up assassination in the context of a reason to continue her campaign.

I find it hard to believe that while constantly making the argument that "anything can happen" between now and the convention, Clinton and her campaign had not considered the possibility of assassination. I think its pretty dumb that she's banking on a surprise from occurring in order for her to win, but I find it hard to believe she's only considered a scandal (especially after Rev. Wright  didn't affect him at all).

I don't think she meant it in her statement, though I would be surprised if she knew what she was implying. In order for her to win, she needs something earth shattering. And as sad and disgusting as it is, an assassination seems just as likely as a surprise scandal that flips all the superdels decisions (I see them both as highly unlikely).

Can we stop giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt? She's hardly earned it.

Thank you Todd for the level-headed comment!  I can't believe that her words are being parsed to this extent. I, for one, believe that there is nothing malicious in her comments especially taken into consideration the context of the interview.

Still, she apologized and we should move on!

What does Kennedy's assassination as an example of "anything can happen" have to do with a primary fight going into June? Those were two separate examples that were tied together by "anything can happen" and that's it.

She was saying, as she said in Time Magazine in March, that he could get assassinated and that's a reason for her to stay in. That's the meteor she's been waiting for.

CLinton disciples and even you, Todd, are gonna have to reckon with WHY their are such strong feelings on both sides about her. To cite "derangement" from anti-Clintonites is to neglect that a)this is the internet, and the political blogosphere is not a random or representative sample of either voters or activists, and b)the fact that nearly half of Clinton supporters - substantial numbers of voters, mind you - in several states have stated that they will not support any nominee but Clinton. In short, there is plenty of derangement to go around, but one candidate has gone out of her way - rhetorically, strategically - to divide this party, with numerous allusions and naked identity appeals to race, class, gender - and you and others wonder why so many people dislike her and distrust her. Stop wondering, and start reckoning. Whether it's her fault or not (and I don't believe all of it is), is sort of irrelevant at this point. She is what she is, for better or worse, and people's opinions and feelings about her are not likely to change in a positive direction over time, as long as she is angling for something bigger.  

This is the problem, Todd.

There's a reason talking about your opponent's assassination is expressly verboten in politics.

You especially do not say it near the end of a heated campaign.

Read Hillaryis44.  Read NoQaurter.  You can't tell me there aren't disturbed people out there, who have become bile filled and enraged to the point of hysterical blindness.  

Would it be her fault if, heaven forbid, one those hyper-emotional supporters also happened to be marginally disturbed and took this as a wink and nod?

No.

But - how do you give then give the nomination to the person who has alluded to precisely that happening?

How do you put her on a ticket with a candidate that she has - in a gaffey way, sure - raised the specter of his possible assassination?

Her apology was completely inadequate.  It was an "if" apology - and one solely to the Kennedy's at that.

I absolutely do not deny the tragic and terrible could happen.

THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS!

If that were to happen, how in the hell is Clinton going to help heal the country?

This isn't just the end of her campaign, it's the end of VP speculation.

This is about Hillary.

Not Obama. Hillary.

May I point out that even if her point was that there had been divisive long primaries before, 1968 which was such a catastrophic year for the Democrats is hardly a good example ?

the clinton's are famous for making every word count. but whatever.

Sorry, Todd... She specifically said RFK was assassinated in June, not that he was still campaigning in June.

And her "apology" doesn't explain that (if we can even call it that).  If anything, it was an apology to the Kennedy family for bringing up something "painful".  She needs to apologize to Obama, and to everyone else, by saying something to the effect of "I never meant to say that I was staying in the race just because there may be a tragedy", which is, of course, no matter how you parse it, exactly what she was saying.  The "anything can happen", along with "assassination of RFK" basically shows exactly what she meant to say.

Enough's enough someone needs to tell the bitch it's time to go home

If she is only talking about races that went into June, why even mention Kennedy's assassination at all?  That's totally irrelevant to the timing point.  

It is relevant, however, for providing an example of "anything that could happen" to the front-runner justifying her decision to stay in the race.  

And just out of curiosity, what did the response say, from the Obama campaign, that you found so intolerable?

And for the record, I don't think she said this abyssmal statement with any malice in mind, but the fact that she even used it is what I'm having a hard time swallowing.

It was a statement of regret for getting caught uttering the stupidest, most insensitive gaffe of the entire campaign. There is no language of apology in her statement. The "I'm sorry anyone was offended" brand of apology, is not an apology.

She's purportedly one of our most astute politicians. This was an inexcusable, telling lapse of judgment.

Well put.

Really?  Just another unfortunate gaffe?  As we all know the really damaging narratives are the ones that play into the existing negative perceptions of the candidate.  Without attempting to divine the motivations or intentions of the candidate in making such a remark, in innocence or otherwise, surely you would have to admit that in the 'context' of her waning prospects and the perception that only an unexpected game-changing event would reopen her path to the presidency that these remarks are radioactive.

That may explain why she was able to make the same 'historical' reference last March with minimal controversy.  Whereas today it is a 'shark-jumping' moment.

Are you completely mad?  His statement was about as low key as it is possible to be.

Please share Obama's comments with the rest of us, and explain to us how they are worse than what Hillary said.

I'd really like to see this.

after the heavy dose of high dudgeon and faux outrage on the thread below, this comes as a breath of fresh air.

I agree with glitterannebegay that this is nothing more than an inartful statement of historical fact.  

Clinton didn't give Obama the benefit of the doubt on Wright, Bitter-gate, Farrakhan (fuck, she brought that up), etc.

Maybe she should have showed some class when these events happened... instead she piled on

I realized the point she was inartfully trying to make

Perhaps you could help me find the diary where you explained and excused Obama's inartful remark about the bitterness of some voters?

What delicious hypocrisy to savor!

And people slag Michelle Obama for saying she might not actively campaign for Hillary - this is a woman who has introduced speculation on an Obama assassination. Whether she meant to do it or not is irrelevant. You can't just stumble around like a bull in a china shop and then claim you didn't mean to break anything, it was just an honest mistake. That doesn't fly when you're running for president. And may I remind you this is the same excuse she gave for her AUMF vote - oh, I'm sorry, that isn't what I MEANT.

Hillary just spat in the face of black people everywhere, not to mention the Kennedys. It was a revolting thing to say and her childish "apology" does not excuse the fact that she should know better, and the fact she doesn't is SCARY.

I have to disagree with this, Todd:

"The reason I feel it's important to make this point is that some in the diaries are saying "she was making the case that anything can happen." No, it would be inexcusable for her to raise that spectre in terms of 2008, she never would."

Clinton has said numerous times (most notably just before the "cling" comments), that she's in the race to the end because "anything can happen". Her comments today only reinforce the cynical view that she will do anything to win.

Todd, the context doesn't help.  The nomination fight is over - should couldn't be referring to that because she lost the delegate race.  Clinton lost.  She lost the pledged delegate race and she's behind in the superdelegates and barely managing to pick up more than she loses.  The fight is over, and was some time ago.  

She needed to explain why she's staying in nonetheless and so she wants people to believe that everything that's happened to date gives absolutely no indication of how things will end up, and throws out the Kennedy assassination as an example of an unpredicatble event that changed things suddenly.  

I support Obama and i did not see ANYTHING wrong with her statement.

If you did, you are the MOST DISHONEST  person out there and you should be very very ashamed of yourself.

Moreover, if you trying to twist this and milk it into some kind scandal, you are a freaking IDIOT because you HAVE SAVED McCAIN's ass from a serious coverage of his medical records and SAVED his  wife's ass from serious examination of her tax record because she just released half-ass tax record of 2006 ONLY.

You are sooooo stupid that you pushed McCain story from the headlines and front pages with your fake outrage and focused in this total non-story. Goodness gracious, what a bunch of freaking kids we have in this campaign.

You are focusing you fires on something that has no impact in November whatsoever. Focus your fires on McCain medical records and his wife tax record.

Look, she clearly thinks that something OTHER than the election itself can affect the nomination, and she wants to be in the best position to capitalize on that something should it happen.  At best, she comes off as a vulture.

If our presumptive nominee is killed, the delegates will choose someone else.  She doesn't need to have a campaign running for her name to be considered.  Her claim, though, is that since nobody else is running but her and Obama, she would be the default selection as long as she stays in the race.  Does she fundamentally misunderstand the nomination process, or is she actually campaigning on her ability to promote herself should someone assassinate Obama?  Either way, she loses nothing by suspending her campaign.

So not only is this a terrible thing for her to have said, it doesn't even work as a rationalization for staying in the race!

I've loathed so many things in a Clinton campaign that has effectively vandalized a good candidate, but I'm willing to give Hillary a pass on this.  She's at her worst when at her most canned, her most inauthentic (the Florida and Michigan abolitionist speech, the outrage over Obama's own screw up in San Francisco, the canned 'change you can xerox' moment).  Here she's speaking off the cuff, and she, as Jerome puts it, "inartfully" phrases a sentence--something Obama has also done a few times this campaign season.  It betrays a kind of desperation, of course, and a me-centered mystification about why some would call on her to withdraw (as though Wolfson wouldn't daily suggest the same if Obama was as far behind in pledged delegates).

Still, in this blog-driven world, I'm sad to see candidates daily neuter themselves and their speech so as not to piss anyone off ever.  I think one reason Obama is so bad off the cuff is owing to his fear of creating a youtube moment.

If you think about HRC's life, the assassination of RFK probably had a big impact on her life, being a young person just out of college.  I don't see any problem with her referring to it.   It did happen that RFK was still campaigning for the presidency in June when he was shot.  There is absolutely no reference to BO, nor any implied reference.  

Why are news agencies making a big deal out of this, when they didn't make a deal about their own commentators DIRECTLY STATING THAT HRC SHOULD BE KILLED?  OH, right, it's because the news agencies don't report on their own mistakes.  They make me sick.

I have alot of black friends and there is a universal flat out paranoia that something is going to happen to Obama.  It's very real.

For her to reference this is simply completely and utterly fucked.  Seriously.  This is insanity.  The black community is now NEVER going to forgive her.

Also, just like Bubba with the SC/Jesse Jackson thing.  It is a weird reference.  It was not a mistake.  Cause as it has been pointed out there are much better, more recent examples of heated primaries going to June.  

THIS WAS NO MISTAKE.

We need one more front page post for a quartet, and it's the one I am dearly waiting to read.

Even Taylor Marsh seems to be backing away from the edge on this one (blaming it on HRC's fatigue).

We must reject and denounce these comments as a community.  They are not acceptable in precisely the "context" of this election.

She's an incredible chameleon, Senator Clinton she is.  

the first time she made the reference:

This from her interview with TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel, published March 6:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

So, WTF? Is she really that oblivious?

The collective obtuseness on display here is mind-boggling.

How on earth are we going to come together when so many Obama supporters are willing to believe that she was saying that Obama might be assassinated? How can we possibly come to agreement on anything?

Then again, I suppose this isn't that surprising, given the number of people who thought that Hillary's comments on 60 Minutes were a deliberate ploy to imply that Obama is Muslim, rather than a categorical denunciation of the same smear.

If you really can't see it, all she meant was that primary contests can go into June.

Who hasn't thought as follows:

What month did we go to Disneyland? It was in November--remember, we went to the Smiths' Thankgiving dinner the day after?

How long did the 1968 campaign go? Let me think--I remember that RFK was assassinated just after winning the California primary, which was always in June back then (just as it was in 1992 with Bill), so it had to have gone on at least that long.

Now, was that so hard?

This whole episode reminds me of the John Kerry botched joke. Everybody knew what he meant, but the GOP, aided by the press, made such a storm over it that he had to go into hiding.

Has anyone anywhere ever heard the 1968 Democratic primary referenced because it ran long?

Fuck no.

But it's referenced all the time in regards to the unpredictability of events.

Her remarks were inexcusable. Full stop.

Bloggers have responsibilities too. Orton's type of absurd, totally reckless, distortion, in which he interprets his opponent's words in the worst possible light and uses that to smear her, is what "has to go". I suppose it's a good way to distract from yesterday's Senate vote in which Clinton voted against war funding and Obama ducked out before the roll call right after an easy vote for vets' benefits.

This vulgar statement associated two things that shouldn't have anything to do with one another: Bill Clinton actually winning the presidency in June, and a horrible example of winning the presidency by remaining in the race as the default candidate.  This is completely irresponsible for a person of Hillary Clinton's stature.  

Out of a sense of fairness, it's acceptable to put it in context.  But this statement does not befit a president.

As Jonathan stated in his post, there were good, positive examples that could have been used to make the case that campaigns often last into the summer. It's unfortunate she opted for this one.

and the hundreds of angry comments demonstrate again what a divisive and polarizing public figure Hillary is.

"In the name of God, go!"

If you want to take her statement into context, she would actually be the Kennedy character because wasn't he behind in June?  So the front runner wasn't assassinated, comparisons to Obama are false.

The context is that about the only way Senator Clinton can win the nomination is if Senator Obama dies.

And what image does Senator Clinton have in her mind? - not a runaway bus but an assassination.

I reckon that is a glimpse into the heart of darkness.

Coming down on Clinton for this is not appropriate.  The context of the comment was clear, and it is disappointing to this Obama supporter to see people trying to make so much of what was, at worst, an unintentionally inappropriate choice of evidence to support the "party unity" question.  Clinton is clearly tired, and beat, and so this is just piling on.  By playing this type of political gamesmanship we are encouraging use of it against Obama by McCain.

The real reason her examples were logically poor is that the Dems lost in 1968, and could not garner a majority of the popular vote in 1992.  

Here is a link to her interview. it is sad that we depend for our information on McCarthytes like Matthews.

Link:

http://www.mogulus.com/argus_leader_tv

I'm sure she didn't mean to say -- "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

I'm, not sure if that makes it better or worse.

Yes i support Obama and yes i am saying this and you can get in line and kiss you know what.

You are a bunch of ..... (fill in the blank).

You are missing the biggest stories of the weekend which are:

1-McCain medical records (which look like he could have lung cancer, high cholesterol, his mental medical exams are missing, he has 5 types of skin cancers...so forth and who is talking about that? NO fucking Body...you are talking about a non-story.

2-Cindy McCain releasing JUST ONE year of tax returns and it is 2006...ONE FUCKING year...adn who is talking about that? NO-fucking-one.and no one is examining them.

Remember how we poured over Hillary and Bill tax returns....well, it seems that our supporters care more about the Clintons than  the McCains, which is totally stupid.

So, Grow up for god's sake. Don't you see that we have become ridiculous. We look like some knee-jerk super-sensitive geeks. So, let me say it: stop the FAKE outrage.

Are Obamaniacs so afraid of losing that they have to resort to this kind of deranged attack? Stop it.

I don't understand why she didn't refer to 1984 in the race between Hart and Mondale, which went to the convention. Or Kennedy and Carter in 1980, which went to the convention.

Those were far less incendiary remarks imo and would've been just as historically accurate in the best light.

...apologize for any comments I may have made that jumped to conclusions about HRC's intent...it was a knee-jerk reaction and I do not feel she meant any harm by them.  However, as noted, it was a poor example to be used.

I was mowing my grandmother's yard and when I came in she was visibly upset...She watches CNN and MSNBC all the time and has a painted picture of JFK and RFK in her living room.  She did not like the fact that RFK's assassination was brought up in such a way, she has been heart-broken about Ted and it's always a big deal on the anniversaries of RFK and JFK...I wish HRC would apologize to these people.

for all his stupid gaffes?

Freakin' cultist response makes me sick.

...posing as righteous indignation, that's what is largely going on here.  This country has truly gone off the deep end.  

Why did this require 3 FP entries?  Sheesh.  I think the answer is obvious, the first post here was clearly anti-Hillary and required a response.  While on Kos, not one post.

She screwed up.  She didn't mean she's hanging in there in case Obama gets murdered.  I don't believe that.  I'm an Obama guy and I see it the same way Todd does.

That said, on June 3rd, we have a candidate and the loser needs to concede.  Period.

Let's talk about context a bit. In South Carolina, Bill Clinton diminished Obama's victory by comparing it to the victory of Jesse Jackson. You can question the intent, but the choice of Jackson had a clear racial effect, especially in the African-American community.

Senator Clinton recently made the remark about "hard-working Americans, white Americans ...." and it is also quite possible she did not intend a racial message. However, it was also very easy to read the statement as in invitation for white voters to consider Obama's race in their voting, and even easier to read it as a wink toward whites as the people who "really work hard." Don't be shocked if many in the AA community took it just that way.

Now Senator Clinton makes a remark about staying in the campaign because things can still happen in June, and one of her two examples is the assassination of the presumptive Democratic candidate in 1968. It is hard to probe her intent, but you are all crazy if you expect there to be no reaction to this. One of the big early reactions in the AA community to Obama's emergence as a major candidate was fear of him being assassinated. (I am not black, but I read several major items online about this fear, and I am sure they are still easy to find.) Now the white challenger to the black presumptive Democratic nominee is mentioning assassination in the same breath as staying in the campaign because things can happen. Expect horrified reaction from AAs and many others about this.

Mistakes are easy to make when campaigning. I can only imagine the stress, the hours and hours of talking where a single mistake is guaranteed to come back to bite you, the circling vultures of the media, opposition monitors and "friendly supporters" (like the one who leaked the "bitter" remark). But there are some things that a politician with a lifetime of experience just doesn't say. This was one of them.

she made the same statement in March, and Kennedy was not ill at that time

it's over for Hillary. She had no margin for error and she just made a HUGE one.