Obama supporters, stay away from this one... let the fake Hillary supporters show the sincere Hillary supporters who they are, the provocatuers are the only ones who will touch it...

No VP FOR YOU!!!!! http://i29.tinypic.com/34gxdw4.jpg

As far as I'm concerned, there's no spin possible on this one. It was undignified, it was desparate. She is unhinged and has lost her moral compass.

It's over.

I've held out for a month now thinking she might even be a possibility for VP.

But I'm done now and I think she is too!

Hillary's explanation does not let her off the hook. This is the same woman who beat Senator Obama over the head about the words, bitter, and cling.

There are some reports out there that this is not the first time that Hillary has mentioned the Robert Kennedy assassination.

Considering her string of Tuzla lies, then her "white Americans" remark, and now to have her bring up the Robert Kennedy assassination, and to then claim that she just did not realize how sensitive an issue it was, makes her unsuitable for to be on the ticket.

We can not have a VP who makes so many offensive remarks, and then always claims that she did not anticipate how they might be offensive. Some one who is that slipshod with words would cause an international incident every couple of weeks.

I agree, I'm definitely having a meltdown. I think it was cheap and classless to invoke this. I would still vote for her if there was no other choice, but what little respect I have left her went down yet another notch.

FWIW, I'm inclined to cut HRC some slack about her "assassination" quote. I really think, in her mind, she thought she was talking about June, not about assassination. I wish there were a way to make Chris Matthews et al change the subject to something -- anything else.

I say this as a solid Obama supporter, and one who wants her nowhere near the VP slot.

Hillary is like some reckless driver who knocks down a gas pump, causing gasoline to spill all around. "Hard working White Americans" is the gasoline. She then takes out the assassination match and strikes it.

She is a very dangerous firebug.

Given that this is the third time she's said it, methinks it a Freudian slip.
I've been thinking this for a while: the Clintons know firsthand how a Veep can be treated - how they themselves treated Gore. Why in the world would Hillary Clinton want to sign up for an entire term - and maybe two terms - of playing second fiddle yet again to yet another charismatic male: having been humiliated publicly by the demonstration of what a superb organizer/manager he's been, in contrast to how pitiful she's been in this respect? She loses to him in a primary that the whole world took it for granted she had sewn up and then signs up to having to kwotow to him for 4/8 years instead of going off in a different direction and carving up a new image for herself in her own right?
I've wondered if this was why - they're both mindful of history and believe it's a good throw of the dice to punt on maybe being able to inherit the presidency without having to campaign for it.
It's not a very nice proposition is it? Every time I've thought it I've felt compunction wondering how I could even entertain the idea. How could I? She'd referenced assassination twice! And now again. Take this in conjunction with the Clintons' overwhelming ambition. If there's any doubt about *that* one we only need to reference Bill Clinton now fantasising about Chelsea assuming the mantle!

Fran,
I looked at your profile and see that you're from Australia! What kind of interest is there about this election there? For example, what's the TV coverage like? Thanks.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no spin possible on this one.

No spin is needed.

So "there could be an assassination" would not be, in reality, a rationale for staying in the race.

RFK was still in the race because no one had won yet. Obama hasn't won yet. RFK was still campaigning in June because no one had won yet.

So is the manufactured outrage that she should have simply said that RFK was still campaigning in June without people calling for him to drop out?

I agree that there was no malicious intent. I think its crazy to think she is suggesting an Obama assassination, or anything conspiratorial. She was just trying to reference the 68 timeline to make a point about why its early to drop out.

Unfortunately for her, in typical Hillary fashion, she referenced RFK in a tactless way, which just makes her seem insensitive. That is her problem in a nutshell, and why alot of people dont like her personality.

How can you NOT love this woman? Class, style,warmth, empathy, and lots of it. And she shares it just like a redneck goober from Podunk Tennessee,Pennsylvania,West Virginia. Do shit kicker boots go with pants suits?

I really don't believe she was suggesting, much less advocating, another assassination.

I do think she was offering RFK as shorthand for "California used to vote in June." She was just saying that if we think back for a while about the assassination, we'll realize that it's fine for her to stay in the race. She was just using that tragic death as a minor prop for her case that she should stay in the race.

Only, a candidate who doesn't understand what's wrong with that tactic is a one who must not be the nominee.

I wonder what Teddy thought when he heard this?

Her June time line argument is specious for the reasons alluded to above. In 1968 the Primary season began in mid-March and in 1992 it began in late February - both facts she failed to mention. She also failed to mention California and the biggest delegate reward was late in the season and thus gave candidates more incentive to stick around. March to June is four months, so four months after January would be April. In this election cycle, the NC/Indiana primary should have been the decider and essentially the end of the primary.

The reason why I think this remark effectively eliminates any chance that she be VP is because should something happen to Obama a heck of a lot of people will suspect her involvement to varying degrees. And in the time the country would need the leadership of the Vice-President the most, this underlying suspicion could be disastrous.

girl from the bronx, I watched the interview in its entirety streaming live.

Hillary did not invoke RFK's assassination for her gain, as Greg Sargent implied in his reporting. Hillary was talking about the length of the current campaign. She was trying to think of past examples of campaigns that lasted all the way to the convention. She mentioned RFK as a candidate who campaigned into June. She also mentioned Bill and his 1992 campaign in the same breath and for the same reason: his campaign went into June.

Her audience was middle-aged (or older) men on the newspaper staff who would have remembered the 1968 election. She referred to how we all remember that Bobby was assassinated in June ("while he was still campaigning" was implied in her reference, something her audience would know). This is how these people talk. I know because my family is from that part of the country.

There was nothing devious with Hillary's reference to RFK, and nothing wrong with her later elaboration:

Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.

When I read Greg Sargent's report at Election Central, I was sickened. He made it sound like the Obama camp presented Clinton's comment as a deliberate reference to Obama. I have to assume he got that impression from his Obama contact(s). That anyone has distorted Clinton's comment in this way is unfathomably despicable to me.

Meanwhile, TPM engages in disgusting chain-jerking of its readers, rather than reporting the facts as the South Dakota Argus Leader reports them. TPM did not go to the source and ask how the editors interpreted Hillary's comment. TPM provided its readers with a YouTube clip of the comment and spin from the Obama camp. I can't believe how irresponsible that is. It blows me away.

If you watch Hillary's interview, the thing you notice immediately is that she looks like hell. She looks extremely tired. She rarely smiles during the whole interview. She spoke energetically and knowledgeably, but the toll of campaigning is visible in her face. If you watched the entire interview, you would not conclude she "invoked" Bobby Kennedy's name in a calculating way in a million years. You would see she is focused on answering the staff's questions.