The interpretation the hysterical Obama people are giving this is truly desperate.  It is clear to me her point was the time of year - June - and not anything to do with assassinations.  I have no doubt that had she said, "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was still on the campaign trail in June in 1968," there would be as much outrage for even a veiled reference to what happened to RFK.  She would not have gotten a pass no matter what she said.

I am frankly less-than-impressed with this gasping, grasping horror over one sentence when for months and months we have been treated to a litany of statements - on an almost daily basis - about what Obama really meant.  There is no position he cannot reverse, no comment he is not willing to deny saying, no group of people he is willing to sacrifice in order to curry favor with another.

I happened to listen to the audio of that interview, and once again, was completely impressed with Clinton's ability to speak with actual knowledge about the state she is contesting, the issues that face the people of South Dakota, what her plans are that will help their economy, etc.  You won't find Clinton walking into a meeting unprepared on a subject she has had months to learn about.  She was in South Dakota and, by God, she probably knows more about SD than the editorial board of the Argus leader.

But now I suppose we will be treated to non-stop outrage since apparently Obama now has exclusive rights to the Kennedy legacy and history; only this paragon of unity and transcendence is deserving of absolution for the hundreds of inartful, false, misleading, disrespectful, snide, cheap and smug comments he has made - and will continue to make.

[Something Sen. Obama seens not to do very well.]

I remember things in the manner of where was I when JFK was killed, what was I doing when ML King was killed in 1968 (or RFK), where was I when looking at the Moon as Armstrong stepped down, how drunk did I get the day Nixon resigned, was my divorce final on the day Mt. St. Helens erupted or the day after, how drunk did I get the day Rehnquist & chumps ruled that Bu$h xlviii was denied equal protection under the law by Gore . . . ?

I am bored to death with the hyper-examination of every word that comes out of both candidates' mouths.  

Slightly OT: I'm so weary of the failure of MSM (can't call a single one of them journalists anymore) hyper-parsing everything eveyone says.  There is no reporting anymore, just writing down what someone says and minutely examining it for hypocritical-ness or error or some offense that can be wrung out of it, or, failing that, made up.  I don't think even older TV 'news' people even remember what reporting actually is.  

Referring to the New Statesman article:

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

...

A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

The point she was trying to emphasize was the fact that the primary was still going on in June, not fact that he was assassinated.  

Obama has been given the benefit of the doubt and many people have done the What Obama Really Meant explanations many times, and it has been accepted.  Hillary deserves the benefit of the doubt and the same courtesy of explaining what she really meant too.

David Rees: Hillary Clinton: "Why Would I Drop Out Before Barack Obama Is Assassinated?"

Clinton is staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated

How utterly ridiculous! It's apparent to anyone who listens to the tape that she just says, in answer to the question, many campaigns have gone into June, right, including RFK, as we all remember that because we remember his death in June? (wasn't he the underdog at that point?)

Of course the media dialog will not be about the original source, but will be an endless stream of remarks about remarks  about remarks made about remarks.

And once again Clinton or her surrogates are not permitted to mention any historical references.

As we learned from LBJ and Jesse, things are blown out of proportion.

I do not think it was anything but saying "it isn't over till it is over and unexpected things can happen" she just used another touchy historical reference.

With the millions of words she's spoken on the campaign trail they have jumped on things she does to such an extreme while entirely ignoring the controversial statements of her opponent.

Her reply should put an end to it, but of course it will not. Clinton's mole hills are mountains.

And I found the rest of the meeting to be outstanding, of course THAT won't get any mention, just the sound bite to harm her will.

She didn't address the crux of the gaffe instead apologizing to the Kennedys who I suspect didn't find much offense in her comments.

She should have addressed the part that was actually offensive to some.  Instead she is letting the story continue.  

In 1963, I'd just turned 4 and we had just moved (within a couple weeks) when JFK was killed.  I remember my dad being home from work and watching the funeral on TV with him sitting beside me on the new floors in our new house.  

I remember being in grade school and trying to understand why all the teachers were so upset when MLK was killed.

I remember, a couple months later, when Bobby was killed, and all the adults at the school were even more upset, and some were choking back tears.

Those nearly tore the country apart.  And, a fair argument can be made that Bobby would easily have beaten Tricky Dick.  Where would we be, had people like Cheney and Rumsfeld not gotten their start in bureaucratic warfare in Tricky Dick's administration?  Where would we be, if all those now-dusty antecedents for today's Unitary Executive had not been laid down by Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean (and Kissinger and Rehnquist and Bork and Rove and Liddy and all the rest of them) in the Nixon WH - which likely never would have been, had Bobby not been shot?  Where would we be in our relations with the rest of the world, had it not happened?  Where would our race relations be?

"Likely in a better place than we are now" seems the fairest, most accurate answer.

Using the possibility that someone might whack another candidate, as a reason for staying in the race, or as an explanation, or as an excuse is not just wrong.  It's reprehensible.  And it exemplifies what Mike Lupica said in his column the other day - for HRC, it's all about getting elected.

I have little doubt that, if something untoward were to happen, those campaigns which were suspended, would get un-suspended in a hurry.  And the delegates and superdelegates would be able to figure out how to nominate someone and put together a campaign.  That all goes without saying, and should have gone without saying.

I'm glad she apologized.  Now, she should go home and put some tape over her mouth.   Because I've heard enough.

Who's she going to win over with that argument? Anyone? No.

Who would she alienate, if she had deliberately made such an argument? A whole lotta people.

Therefore, how on earth can you argue that this was a deliberate attempt to draw a parallel between Obama and RFK?

To me, Obama is SO not-RFK that I honestly had no idea what the snit was about until Obama supporters started explaining [thunder] what Hillary really meant.[/thunder]

Concern trolling at its finest.

Man, and people think we should reward this primary and all of its atrocious media players with a GE win?

I say this because it's important to remember that Obama's supporters are necessary in this election, and the only way for all of us to win is to understand each other.  Put yourself in their shoes for a moment by imagining the above events had happened to Hillary Clinton.  

So June 2, 1968 is a memorable date for those of us of a certain age, and, though it's just eleven days short of forty years ago, we remember vividly the date of that California Primary, and therefore remember that, with the convention coming up in August, the big-state primaries were still going strong into late June (NY, as I recall, was June 18, 1968).  

Hillary's point, though, was that if you believe, you fight until the fight is over.  That year, 1968, the insiders had picked Hubert Humphrey, and there were never enough delegates even in play to defeat him simply by accumulating delegates, because from the beginning superdelegates loyal to LBJ's heir apparent outnumbered all the delegates even up for election in those days before the McGovern Commission reforms.  The primaries were about demonstrating strength, and articulating message, not just about running up a delegate score. The convention, for good or for ill, was intended to perform a deliberative function, not just a coronation.  And with the two finalists this year so close that neither has enough elected delegates to achieve an outright majority, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the convention provide a deliberative function, and be a safety valve, this year.

Safety valve? Yes. Those who took the outraged view of Hillary's statement her referencing RFK's death was subliminal messaging.  With a longer perspective, one needn't leap to that conclusion.  But even if it were, then the message is not that she wishes anyone ill, but that three months is an eternity in politics.  Remember, for example, the imperfect vetting of Tom Eagleton and Gerry Ferraro. For that matter, recall that on March 16, 2004, Jack Ryan, an attractive, charismatic, ex-Goldman Sachs multimillionaire, won the Illinois Republican primary for United States Senate, and was favored to win the general election for the open seat, until on June 25, 2004, only 100 days later, scandalous allegations from his ex-wife ended his candidacy, after which his opponent, a certain Barack Obama, coasted to election over Ryan's carpetbagger replacement.

But anything goes when its Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Anything.