I'm an Obama supporter, and I've been increasingly disappointed in some of the actions and statements coming from the Clinton campaign, but in this case I do not believe she was doing anything more than trying to state that some primaries go on into June, but she chose her example very poorly.

She's said it before. It's not a slip, it's a talking point. And the word "assassination" doesn't slip into a talking point by accident.

Did you get hacked or are you already drunk? You are linking to a Fox news blog that's using a Drudge story as a source.

Not putting anything past Hillary here, but . . . geez!

It's on YouTube. Creepy. Disgusting. Words fail.

She has referenced it FOUR separate times over the campaign.
MSNBC

1968 Martin Luther King assassinated. Anti war candidate Robert F Kennedy assassinated. Anti war demonstrators at the contested Democratic convention beaten by police live on TV. Democrats run a mediocre candidate who is beaten by Republican Nixon. 6 more years of war in Vietnam. 22,000 more dead. 1974 Nixon resigns rather than face impeachment for criminal coverups. 2001 Nixon staffers in Bush administration bring unitary executive, suspension of the constitution, warrantless wiretaps...

She said it back in March, but it wasn't widely picked up. It's disappointing. Imagine if some yokel in her Appalachian stronghold took this to be their Helter Skelter.

She is saying - in as subtle as a train wreck way as she can - that remaining delegates should vote for her because, afterall, the black guy ain't gonna be around too long. It is digusting and irresponsible to say the least. As a first lady and senator, she understands more than anyone the potential consequences of referencing assassination.

Seems like she's trying to use the most vivid example she can muster in order to establish that the nomination often takes this long and longer. It's a dubious tactic, but I don't think she's implying that Obama will be assassinated.

This is a very poor choice of words for Senator Clinton, and will likely end any further chances she had of being Obama's VP. What is strange is that she has made this remark several times before. And also yesterday, one of her surrogates, Senator Tom Carper was pushing for Clinton to VP and made this remark:
"I'll encourage [Obama] to ask, and if he does, for her to say yes. She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him." This is likely a very bad coincidence, but it does make me wonder what in the world the Clinton Campaign is thinking these days.

No. I don't think in any way shape or form she was implying that Obama might be assassinated.

All she did was open up wide and place her foot in her mouth. True I doubt very much she intended to imply that someone is going to be getting assassinated.

She didn't imply that he would be assassinated in any way. I am an Obama supporter and this whole thing is being taken out of context. Her supposition is that everyone is freaking out about the primary season lasting until June, but there have been historical examples of the primaries extending until June, with the year RFK was assassinated being one of those years. I think this speaks largely of the paranoia that Obama supporters might actually have, that she even alludes to a historical assassination and we all freak out.

The "historical example" is nothing of the sort. The 1968 primary began in March - RFK was cut down in the middle of it. It is not an example of a long campaign - the States have greatly revamped their primary schedules since then. Clinton is old enough to remember the 1968 campaign and her repetition shows it was anything but a slip.
As far as Clinton's reference to her husband's campaign in 1992, by March his competitor Paul Tsongas had dropped out leaving Bill's nomination all but assured.
Clinton wants to weaken Obama to clear her way to the nomination she feels entitled to in 2012. She'd love to be in a position to force Obama to "invite" her to the VP spot only to spur him and make him look even weaker.

Talking points are thoroughly tested inside the campaign by staff and advisors long before they are repeated. At that time the implications would have been discussed. It was a calculated move.

She is trying to build a 50 state organization for a future run. Pray the funders and superdeligates send her back to the senate June 3.

In no way do I think this was calculated. First of all, there is no benefit to her campaign, only harm.

She made a horrible, horrible gaffe, though. Of course she doesn't want Obama assassinated... but some psycho might think she does.

If she doesn't understand the impact of those words, then she doesn't understand the power of words, and she doesn't understand what it takes to be president.

Sure, we all make mistakes, no big deal. We say the wrong thing at the wrong time, and somebody takes it the wrong way. Whoops. It's not the fact that she said it (which is really enough), it was the way she handled herself after the fact that truly disgusted me.

No "I'm sorry", no "It was a mistake", just some vaguely worded press release that had shit to do with anything.

Unfit for command, indeed.

I think it's pretty obvious that she wasn't explicitly saying that she's justified in staying in the race because Obama might get whacked.

But she sure was suggesting it. Yes, she was making a simple point that primary campaigns have sometimes lasted through June. But if you think about the statistical impossibility of Hillary winning at this point, it's clear that the only reason she's staying in the race is because "you never know what could happen." A game-ending gaffe by Obama, a sex tape, that kind of thing. But when your game plan relies on "anything could happen," it's beyond stupid to use RFK's assassination to defend your decision to stay in the race.

Keith Olbermann pretty much got it right on this one, I think.

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is BS. All she was saying was come June, she'll either sink or swim, but her fate shouldn't be determined now. Simple.

Right, I'm all for Obama, too. And, I'm not a Hillary hater, either... (That takes a lot more effort than it used to, but I still appreciate the things she's done)

And I also agree, that she was just trying to get a point across. After saying the same thing so many different ways, you start to get creative, and this was nothing more than that.

BUT, the fact remains that, what she essentially said, INTENTIONAL OR NOT, was :
I'm staying in the race because my husband didn't have it wrapped til June (which is FALSE, in case anyone remembers), AND maybe someone will shoot Obama. So let me make this clear. If you shoot Obama, I will be the nominee. Thank you good night.

Is that what she meant? NO. Is that what she said? YES.

It's like when you're married. And you tell your wife "WOW, I really like your hair like that." Depending on the day... that may sound like "I really like your hair like that" OR it may sound like "This way you're doing your hair is MUCH BETTER than the way you normally do it".

And that's okay for that to get misinterpreted because that's HUMAN NATURE. So as a man, you maybe learn this lesson once or twice, and after apologizing both times, taking full responsibility, and assuring her the former, not the latter is true, you then stop making the mistake.

Hilldawg can't admit mistakes, she definitely doesn't learn from them, and I've had enough of that for the past 8 years.

Y'all are suckers. It wasn't an insinuation, it was an INVITATION. A SUGGESTION. A REQUEST.

But there are many layers to her remark, and I doubt that her intentions were limited to any one of the possibilities discussed by pundits and talking heads.

I really agree with Andrew Sullivan when he calls the Clintons sociopaths. And if Obama was so unlucky, I doubt she'd shed anything but crocodile tears.