I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but...

Time Magazine

She said almost the exact same thing two months ago. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she might have slipped up and just phrased it badly, but she's said this before. Now I'm not so sure.

So she's going through reasons in her mind about why to stay in the race, especially given the chorus of people urging her to quit, she reaches for a historical reference.

Really? It seems like such a horrible thing to say. Why would she say it twice? Are there no other historical references? I have to agree with the first poster - I find that a little hard to swallow...am I crazy?

And honestly, I don't see what the assassination has to do with the length of the primary season, or why she'd reach back to the '60s for an example of late primaries.

Did she come up with this line herself, or was it one of her advisors?--a reasonable question, since according to MSNBC, she's used the RFK example at least four times, twice with and twice without the actual assassination reference. (always coupled with the ref. to Bill's campaign).

She slipped, yes. But it's a major slip by a woman who has mostly seemed in control for most of her life.

After the quote in TIME, whenever she spoke of the 1968 California primary, she spoke about the fact that RFK, won it. She knew the assassination reference was a bad way to go. As to her historical references. . .

Clinton in 92 went over the top with California but to say he was fighting for the nomination into June is rewriting history a bit. Which she does have a history of doing to bolster her profile (Tuzla). So that is why many people are questioning to next part.

The RFK reference . . .

She could have easily chosen the fact that when McGovern (whom she camvassed for) won the California primary in 1972, he leapt past HHH. But she can't because that would also evoke the fact that HHH and his cronies changed how California delegates would be chosen (it was suppose to be winner take all until the winner wasn't HHH) and that would draw negative comparisons to her endeavors for FLA and MI.

So she goes with RFK. The problem is there is no comparison.
While RFK was still battling (HHH wanted the nomination and was not going to give in - sound familiar? - and McCarthy was jockeying for a voice at the convention), he was the frontrunner. Also, the problem is that the race was different back then. California came later as did New York so as not to overshadow the smaller states.

And she knew this since she was already active in politics back then (switching from paternal GOP to rebellious Dem). She also knew that the decisive action in California that determined the nomination was not but the assassination. And that is how she spoke of it, forgetting that she was suppose to spin it about a long race and not about "things happen."

I won't even consider the notion that she is waiting for Obama to be assassinated. But she is watching as the prize she so long sought is slipping away and she is "clinging" to some hope that another "Wright" or "Bitter" moment would come. Ironically, it did.

heated contest until you officially lose or until you die. Do Obamacrats go to stupidity school?

It's inconceivable that a Clinton supporter would run around solidifying opposition like you are right now.

This makes you a troll. Whether you're working to firm-up the rift in the Democratic party by design, or because you don't care, is immaterial.

What's amazing is that anyone could thing that you're sincere, or that you represent Clinton supporters in any way.

One need only review Gatewood's posting history to realize that Gatewood has never put forth any reason to support Hillary Clinton. You don't need a Doctorate in psychology to understand that Gatewood is actually a racist Republican intent on fomenting division within the Democratic party. It only takes common sense to arrive at that conclusion.