In and of itself, it wasn't the most terrible thing she could say. But added to the bitter stuff that has come out of the campaign, I think it sounded sinister and mean.

I understand what she was trying to say about campaigns running into June. I wish that she hadn't used that language. It was not the smartest move which is why I DON'T think it was intentional.

Thank you for giving us the 1968 stats Citizen. I think that puts it more into perspective. He was a second runner too.

I think it was a pretty weird, non-sequitur thing to say, but not really offensive.

if it had been the first time she said it, sure. but she said it in march and her handlers pointed out how inappropriate it was. when she spoke along similar lines earlier in the month she only referenced the year, not what happened to rfk. so why change the language again? it was uncalled for.

The Argus Leader’s Executive Editor Randell Beck issued the following statement today:

"The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

I can understand the purpose of the statement, but the choice of words are so...random. She could have just simply said that Kennedy was also behind in June...assassination is just so random, I can't understand her reasoning.
Subliminal messages!

except she really didnt say the words 'I'm sorry' and no starting a halfhearted apology with the words 'if i offended anyone.....' doesnt count.

If I was her campaign manager, I'd be talking to her about saying only those things she's NOT going to have to apologize for later. Isn't she a smarter person than this?

if she felt like Apologizing that's good, at least she can, let's just hope she does not have to apologize for alot of things further

She was making a correlation on the time line of primaries. I think this is being blown way out of proportion by the media. What a surprise.

I think she was just pointing to the historical context. Of course, the comparison isn't really valid given that the '68 primary season started in March and this primary season started like 3 days into the new year.

But, I still don't think she was in any way implying that Obama might be shot so she should stick around. That wouldn't even make sense anyway. Were he shot in June, she would still likely be the person to step up whether or not she remained in the race at that point.

I do think the reference to her husband's campaign was a valid point, though. One that everyone calling for her to drop out might consider.

It may be semi valid to the extint that her husband was ahead. She isn't and she can't get a majority of delegates at this point. If she had a chance of winning, I could see her staying in. She can't get the nomination without further cheating, and I can only see that backfiring on her in the general election.

I really hate politicians' use of the phrase "I regret ... if anyone was offended." It's simply not an apology. At best, she's sorry that she was caught and pissed people (i.e., voters) off. An apology shows true understanding about the inappropriateness of what was said and remorse for it.

On January 8, while introducing Hillary before a speech in New Hampshire, a retired teacher said this:

"If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader. He gave us a lot of hope," the retired teacher said. "But he was assassinated, and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all of his work and got both the Republicans and Democrats to pass those measures."

How do those of you who claim Hillary was just making a historical reference explain that away? Saying that "people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK"? How can that be construed to be anything other than a direct correlation to Barack Obama?

The day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries Hillary made this comment:

"Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992," she said. "I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."

That is almost word for word what she said yesterday. However she did have the good sense not to include the word "assassination" on that occasion. Still, the inference is clear.

Then yesterday Hillary repeated virtually the same thing she said then without omitting the A-word:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Following the uproar over her remarks yesterday Hillary issued a lame excuse as an apology that really wasn’t an apology:

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

She did not say she hoped Obama would get assassinated. She didn't infer or imply it. This is the sort of garbage that everyone has to jump on because she's still viable. Let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is: campaign rhetoric.

Dave - Campaigning the superdelegates is not "cheating". Rather, it's following the process exactly as the DNC intended it. Insisting the superdelegates have to go in any direction, including going with the current leader is cheating.

All that said, I don't really care whether or not she drops out. Frankly, I prefer Obama go forward because I believe he will be easier for McCain to beat. And, frankly I just prefer him to Hillary in the even McCain loses. I just don't like the kind of politicking that implies voters are stupid and if you just scream loud enough that something is a certain way, they'll buy it.

Biz - I don't like what the retired teacher said, but I thought Obama supporters had pretty adamant all along that a candidate doesn't necessarily subscribe to things that even their closest advisors might say.

As for the "how can it possibly not be an implication" question, the answer is simple. Does it even make sense as an implication? Would it have any bearing on her campaign as an implication? I think, no. So it seems silly to try to infer it.

As for the apology, I hate it when politicians do non-apologies for things that should be apologized for. I think this remark should not have offended, so I don't see why she needs to grovel for it.

Clinton's husband had already more or less secured the nomination in March of '92, so to claim that he was still involved in a hotly contested competition until June is completely misleading. Also,RFK didn't start running until March of '68 and didn't participate in his first primary until May of that year. So when Sen. Clinton says that he was still running in June, she's right, but that implies that he was involved in a campaign that's been going on as long as this current one has. In trying to put her comments in context she's completely distorting history

I think her statement was REALLY off....but because of the fact that the month of June makes no difference. The New Hampshire primary in 1968 was in MARCH...the contests started 3 months later than ours. A June in 1968 is not equal to June of 2008. This has been going on for nearly 6 months now, not so back then.

I think her reference of assasination was a poor choice, but probably not an intentional dig. Obama said he takes her at her word. I think that the fact that her campaign keeps saying things that lean towards crossing the line without actually doing it doesn't help her though.

Clinton's supporters that are trying to marginalize Hillary's comments about RFKs assassination are the very same supporters that were screaming bloody murder when Obama's bitter comments came out. What she said was irresponsible and you all know it.

Obama's supporters that were trying to marginalize Obama's bitter comments are the very same supporters who are screaming bloody murder over Clinton's RFK comments. What he said was irresponsible and you all know it.

Obama supporters are biased in Obama's favor. Hillar's supporters are biased in Hillary's favor. WHEW! Glad that's settled. Let's have a

Campaigning superdelegates is not cheating, you are correct. Changing the rules in include FL and MI is. The ONLY reason she is trying to get them included is because she is so far behind.

Well DUH of course it is...just like Obama didn't want to have another primary in those states because it was in her favor. These are POLITICIANS! Both of them....not just one. He's just much better at hiding it and we know all of her dirty laundry.

Obama has never said he didn't want another primary. He has consistantly said that he would be in favor of whatever the DNC decides.

Obama supporters are biased in Obama's favor. Hillar's supporters are biased in Hillary's favor. WHEW! Glad that's settled. Let's have a

Nice!

Biz - The fact that Bill Clinton wasn't in a closely contested race and his opponent still didn't pull out before June makes her case stronger not weaker.

Dave - I think it's a little more gray than black and white, but the fact remains that re-including those states isn't the only way she could win the nomination at this point.

UD I think you LOVE him.

You Looooooooooooove him!

harmonyfrance....touche

No, I Loooooooooooooooove my wife. I like my golf game. I enjoy debating politics. I don't like the way the Clintons have abused the system for the last 16 years...

I do like you though

Go Team Red

While it wasn't the best statement to make, it wasn't extremely offensive; she's apologized now move on already.

"just like Obama didn't want to have another primary in those states because it was in her favor. "

That isn't true, Harmony. Obama has always said that he would agree to whatever the DNC and the states agreed upon. The states and the DNC never reached agreement on what should be done.

This goes on the list of things i care less about. Here it is
1) Rev Wright
2) Rev Hagee
3) Obamas bitter comments,
4) Obama calling someone sweetie
5) Obamas affinity for Jay Z
6) Hillarys RFK Comment

The only thing i want from my president is the ability to run my country. We tend to forget they are human and therefore subjected to saying stupid things from time to time. Anyone who jumps on these little bandwagons want a president to idealize and worship not the best man (or woman) for the job.

I might give Hillary a break if she wasn't spending so much time putting her foot in her mouth.

every politician spends half of their time pulling their foot outta their mouth, our current president is barely literate, the republican nominee called his wife a c*nt for all to hear and obama said that he has been to 57 states, among tons of other little vocal mishaps he has. in the grand scheme of things, its really not as important as being able to answer the questions "are you gonna tax the crap outta me" "are you gonna do something about gas prices" "what are you doing about the war" etc etc etc.

grr flagged, i will try this. our current president is barely literate, the republican nominee called is wife the c word for all to hear, obama said he has been to 57 states (which to some conspiracy theorists, is the exact amount of islamic states in the quran). to be honest it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

H AND LETS NOT FORGET MRS OBAMA...THAT IS ONE BITTER WOMAN !

There are some important facts ignored here and by Hillary;

Robert Kennedy didn't begin his campaign until May 1969, so he had only been campaigning about a month. Also there were still important primaries including California. What's left for Hillary?

Bill Clinton was the frontrunner by March 1992 and again, the primary schedule was different.

I don't know what is more infuriating, that the Clintons say whatever they please in condradiction of the facts or that press usually blythely ignores their misfacts or outright lies.

In previous post it should have been "begin his campaign until May 1968 (not 1969 - typo). Sorry.

:: Open mouth insert foot. Honestly, If I had to spend as much time speaking publicly as either canidate does, I would never sleep, I'd be writing so many formal apologies. Honestly, I'm impressed that a day can go by when they don't say something mildly offensive in this overly sensitive and PC climate. They are both working thier butts off and they are both exhausted.

Harmony, pass them maritnis. They could both use a drink or two.

They are both supposed to be pollished politicians, who are vying for the right to represent us to the whole world. If they get sloppy when they are tired, I don't want them in a position to further embarass us as a nation.

McCain has made a couple slips of the tongue that could anger allies and enemies, so maybe no one running is qualified.

kastarte....I will! AND here's some for you!!!!

AND here's one for you Jill

GO TEAM BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People are too touchy! Wah, you were forced to think about an upsetting moment that happened 40 years ago for a whole minute. Get over it! Hey, you know what?! RFK was assassinated in June, therefore a good deal of people had to change their decisions about who they were going to vote for. I guess she could've spared everyone's feelings and just said "sh*t happens!" I prefer to just laugh at the people who found this offensive.

Polished politician or not, no one can be perfect 100% of the time. It's inhuman. I'm an Obama supporter, but I think people are reading too much into what was said. She was trying (and failing) to make a timeline point, not trying to suggest that Obama was going to be offed before primary season is over.

No canidate is ever going to be so perfectly polished that they will never say anything to upset anyone. As a nation we are too uptight and too diverse for that to happen. They say one thing to appeal to one group and they end up insulting another. They make pitches to thier supporters and they end up alienating the other side. The only way to be safe is to be silent and we would certainly get no enjoyment out of that.

btw Flutterpie
When did McCain Call his wife the C word? How did I miss that? By "C word" I'm guessing you don't mean Cindy?

"our current President is barely literate"....Seriously?

The name calling story has been around for a while - here's a link to the story on Wonkette. I've read elsewhere that he's never denied it.

http://wonkette.com/376849/mccain-called-his-wife-c+word

Thanks, Harmony!

Go Team Blue!

Go Team Red