It's disgusting what's passing for "journalism" these days when the "journalists" on Slate are listening to the NY Post as a basis for their blog discussion. I'm not sure if the Post has ever been a credible source for anything, but they're not even trying now.

Get a clue, Slate.

Um...Yes she did say that. It's not just being reported by the Post. I've seen it on MSNBC and CNN as well. There is also a link to the VIDEO of her saying it on the Post and MSNBC sites. I doubt she meant it as - Maybe he'll be shot thus making my staying in worthwhile - , but probably more like - people have stayed in until June before, we all remember RFK didn't seal the deal until June, and we all remember that because of this event. Whatever she meant though, it was a stupid stupid stupid statement that she didn't phrase well at all, and my guess is it is going to cause her some problems (as if she doesn't have enough). I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt because I used to admire her...although there is a small part of me that thinks - yeah, she probably did mean it just as it sounded.

How about before giving lessons on journalistic integrity, you actually check the facts yourself?

Get a clue, Mercadia.

<link> EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HC: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June

EB: June

HC: We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

I've been waiting for her to explain that she was staying in the race because someone was going to shoot Obama. Now she's done it. Her desperation is pathetic, and damaging to America. Shut up Hillary. Please.

Yes she discussed the death of RFK in June, but she did not say it, in any way, to imply anything about Obama being assassinated. She was talking about other races that went until June, including RFK, who felt no need to give up his candidacy--until he was killed. Otherwise, he would have fought as long as it took.

It had nothing to do with saying that Obama would be assassinated. That's ridiculous.

marcparis,

You're stupid if that's what you read into that statement.

I KNOW what she said, I read it and I watched it.

It has nothing to do with Obama being assassinated--nothing. She is saying that SHE is Bobby Kennedy, not Obama. If anything she is saying that SHE might be assassinated, not him.

Jesus.

Quick history lesson for you Mercadia. RFK clinched the nomination by winning California. That same night, he was assassinated. So he did, in fact "stay in as long as it took". Also, RFK was the frontrunner for most of the primary, and had, in fact, been referred to as "the presumptive nominee" for some time before he actually reached the required number of delegates with the CA win. So, it is actually kind of strange for Hillary to use him as an example at all, given that those facts make him seem more like he was in Obama's situation, but whatever.

How did you arrive at the idea that she sees herself as RFK? Are you trying to tell me that she's staying in the race because she might be assassinated? That, instead of running for president, that her campaign has just been a very expensive and nationally divisive suicide attempt?

mercadia:

Yes she discussed the death of RFK in June, but she did not say it, in any way, to imply anything about Obama being assassinated. She was talking about other races that went until June, including RFK, who felt no need to give up his candidacy--until he was killed. Otherwise, he would have fought as long as it took.

It had nothing to do with saying that Obama would be assassinated. That's ridiculous.

Well, you're simply wrong mercadia (delusionary, as usual).

RFK was generally thought to be on his way to winning. He had just won CA and SD (although he slightly earlier lost Oregon).

The only way to interpret her remark is "Hey, the guy could DIE, you know."

Mercadia - I would be very careful about calling other people stupid, if I where you. I'm just saying. I'm guessing that you are very young....

You're not exactly correct, Texas: He was not assured of the nomination (and Humphrey in fact had powerful backing and many "delegates.") He WAS, however, generally acknowledged to be a strong--and getting stronger--candidate who, probably by name recognition alone, would have been an extremely powerful force.

Here's a little video about it: <link>

Wrong, He did not clinch the nomination. He had to beat Hubert Humphrey, even after the California primary.

Clinton was comparing herself to RFK, not Obama. And even if you think she wasn't comparing herself to RFK, she certainly wasn't comparing Obama to RFK.

Texas,

Oh really? I can't call marcparis stupid even though he can tell me to "get a clue?"

And despite the fact that he's very wrong?

Alright.

She said it and she has already apologized. What a gal! She is beyond despicable.

She shouldn't have apologized. How many times is she going to have to apologize for the fact that people are brainless, emotionally vampiric morons?

Big of her to do so though, but jesus.

And StevieN,

By the way, I am flattered that you believe I am delusionary. If only I had the capabilities to delude the masses as you think I do. That is a very powerful ability indeed.

Unless you mean delusional...then I would suggest buying a dictionary.