Here is the actual transcript from the "assasination comment". Draw your own conclusions

[hijinx87]

During an interview with the Argus Leader's Editorial Board today, Sen.
Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Sen. Bobby Kennedy. Her
remarks triggered a storm of attention nationwide.

Clinton issued a statement about her comments.

“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.”

Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:

This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it¬¬-

EB: Why? Why?

I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

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

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

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.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/UPDATES/80523037

she appears to be merely commenting on the june timeframe to me . . . but, whatever the case, I am a little
shocked that she would bring it up.

[book_worm]

1. She clearly is pointing out that something like an "act of god" or whatever can happen

and that's deplorable.

[hijinx87]

4. a reasonable case can be made

that she was simply pointing out that june isn't "late" in the primary process.

[EFerrari]

31. Umhumm. What about the other times she went there?

It's not reasonable to believe this was yet another accident of speech, tiredness or stress.

She sat there with her speech writers or coaches or cockroaches and planned to use this.

[hijinx87]

36. Umhumm. what other times are you speaking of? n/t

[EFerrari]

40. This isn't the first time she brought up Bobby's assassination.

Someone who isn't seeing red may be able to get a link for you. But iirc, this is like the THIRD time.

[hijinx87]

47. please name them.

and your reference to seeing "red" is an inappropriate euphemism, if I
understand the DU guidelines properly.

is it no longer possible to prefer hillary in the primaries without being
slimed as a rethug? if something has changed in that regard, the admins
need to post a new policy.

[jakem]

88. NOT the first time. with link.

Hillary's Bizarre RFK Comment


Though she has now apologized for that very strange and tasteless comment to the Argus-Leader, this was not the first time she's said it. This from her interview with TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel, published March 6:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?


CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been "much on my mind these days" with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

[EFerrari]

108. The reference is to anger, not to republicans. n/t

[kskiska]

94. Seeing "red"?

It could just as easily be inferred that you're labeling Hillary a communist. See how this works?

[EFerrari]

107. Not by someone who can read English. See how it works? Ciao.

[polmaven]

87. The other times that have been manufactured

by the Obama campaign, and now, apparently, by KO.

You see, children will "clearly" hear what is suggested they hear.

[jakem]

90. hmm. really?

Hillary's Bizarre RFK Comment


Though she has now apologized for that very strange and tasteless comment to the Argus-Leader, this was not the first time she's said it. This from her interview with TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel, published March 6:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?


CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been "much on my mind these days" with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

[DemGa]

2. Thanks for the context -- NT

[JerseygirlCT]

3. I guess I see three possibilities:

1. She intended to drop strange hints about anything happening, so she should stick around.

2. She was talking about the June timeframe and made a huge gaffe in how she phrased it.

3. She was doing both.

Giving it the best gloss, 2., then I have to wonder about how strongly she and her supporters came after Obama on his poorly worded comments about "bitter". There was no mercy shown there. His gaffe was fodder for several wins.

It will be interesting to see how the Obama camp responds to this.

[sandnsea]

7. The June timeframe is a big fat lie

So now what are you going to use to excuse her.

[hijinx87]

15. the word "lie" implies that she was somehow organically connected to wiki, or something

maybe she just thought it was june.

[sandnsea]

22. Excuse me?? n/t

[hijinx87]

27. I 'lie" means that she knew the facts with precision . . .

and misrepresented them.

I am willing to consider the possibility that she didn't have the
opportunity to google (like YOU did) the exact chronology of events
back in 1968. Or even whether her husband effectively locked the
nomination in 1992, vs. when he officially clinched the nomination.

and you are excused ;)

[sandnsea]

29. Are you serious? You can't be. You just can't.

You seriously think she didn't know the numbers of her own husband's election??

Or that anybody involved in politics in 1968 didn't know the numbers?

Seriously??

[hijinx87]

32. yes. seriously. I think people can be mistaken

and your incredulity simply doesn't prove your point.

[sandnsea]

35. Do you know this year's numbers?

Do you think Bill does? Do you think Chelsea does? Do you think Michelle does?

Do you think I do?

Do you think 95% of DU does?

I mean come on.

[hijinx87]

42. yes, I am familiar with the delegate count.

personally, I think she should get out for the good of the party. but I
genuinely believe that she is the superior candidate. I also think that it
is her right to represent the millions of people that voted for her during
the primaries.

and it doesn't freaking matter what you believe that bill or chelsea may
think. that's just an odd thing to say.

[sandnsea]

48. So you know the delegate count, but the former President

the spouse of the candidate - just doesn't care enough to know the numbers.

Is that what you're telling me?

[hijinx87]

52. I am not telling you anything. it's clear that the attempt would be fruitless.

I don't mean that disrespectfully, but, really.

[sandnsea]

57. No, because you know it's plain idiotic

To suggest people involved in political campaigns don't know the delegate count. But go ahead and do like everybody else does - pretend I'm the problem instead. :eyes:

[hijinx87]

60. well, the fact that I resent being called an "idiot" aside for the moment . . .

until someone gets to 2,026, it looks like she can exercise her
OBLIGATION to continue to represent the interests of her MILLIONS
of primary voters.

you gotta problem with democracy?

[sandnsea]

61. Which has what to do with June?

:shrug:

Where is your basis for her June remarks now?

[hijinx87]

62. the executive editor of the Argus Leader speaks out . . .

"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."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

[sandnsea]

64. No no, YOU

You answer my questions.

Do you have any idea how much idiotic shit I read in the paper every day? I am stunned these people get paid to report nothing but a pack of lies.

[hijinx87]

66. oh, I see. she makes a stupid comment, which, in context makes more sense,and I have to justify it?

got it.

rephrase your questions, and I will endeavor to answer them. not that I
am looking forward to bashing my skull against the wall . . .

[sandnsea]

68. What's YOUR rationale for her June comments

not that you can't pretend she was confused over past elections, or that this has got anything to do with super delegates going to the convention.

Why'd she say it?

[hijinx87]

70. I have said it again and again and again.

I am not one to debate endlessly with no result, or in circles.

I suspected that the second that you bit on my thread that we would
get here.

she said it in response to a question about party unity, during which
her interviewer volunteered June as somehow a date that was late in the
primary process.

all she did was mention a reason why june is not the reason to stop counting
delegates. it was a tasteless reason, I admit.

but there it is. again. deal with it.

[sandnsea]

71. Yep, there you are

All the way back at the beginning of your circle, even though it's been clearly shown she has no reason to refer to June because the calendar has changed and there's nothing to be gained from this June primary the way there was in other years. Just brush reality out of the way and paint any pretty picture you want.

:crazy:

[hijinx87]

72. I think that my picture may have less partisan paint, if you know what I mean. n/t

[sandnsea]

76. Oh god, it's ALL partisan paint, wake the fuck up n/t

[hijinx87]

79. it was a metaphor. red states vs. blue states. I'm not surprised . . .

that pursuing the metaphor was beyond you.

[sandnsea]

82. What metaphor?

Red state idiots are more inclined to excuse the racist hate mongering that has come out of Hillary's campaign - topped off with her blatant warning that she needs to stand-by in case on of her racist supporters offs the nominee??

Is that the kind of metaphor you're talking about?

[hijinx87]

84. your response is utterly unacceptable

the democrats winning the white house DEPENDS on flipping one or two of those states
that you are too good to think about. and that you call racists.

get off your soapbox, and meet the real world, dude.

[sandnsea]

85. No, her winning the White House

depends on "something happening" to Obama. That's all Hillary cares about.

[hijinx87]

89. you really are ignoring the facts that I have posted in this thread, aren't you?

I just wonder if that isn't intentional.

[sandnsea]

92. What facts? You've posted no facts n/t

[hijinx87]

93. you missed the actual transcript, didn't you? n/t

[sandnsea]

96. My first post rebutted the damn transcript

Do we need to go around in another circle??

[hijinx87]

97. you can't rebut a transcript. it's the way the words went down.

how do you rebut the truth?

[sandnsea]

98. "merely commenting on the june timeframe"

:eyes:

You really aren't clever.

[hijinx87]

101. that adds nothing to an otherwise spirited debate. n/t

[sandnsea]

103. Yeah I bet you don't want to deal with your own words

Since I already demolished them.

[hijinx87]

105. and I will bet . . . .

that you are willing to shout at a blank wall.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. I'm not excusing anything; I'm an Obama supporter

I'm just trying very hard to look at this as objectively as possible. And mostly failing, I'll admit.

[sandnsea]

23. Lots of people defend her

I have no idea why. This is as clear as it gets that she's not only all about herself, she's nuts too.

[hijinx87]

25. your open-mindedness is truly admirable. n/t

[hijinx87]

24. and I am not "excusing" anything. I was simply posting the actual transcript.

I believe I even actually said "draw your own conclusions" in the thread
title.

I see that my thread with that actual dialog is falling in the forum, in favor
of flames and the grinding of agendas.

disappointing.

[goclark]

8. bitttfer and her remarks are a thousand light years away from each other

She knew exactly what she meant to say ~ if she is so "experienced" this would never have happened.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. I think the possible results of her remarks are far, far more

serious. So yes, even if one accepts it as an unintentional gaffe, I'd expect the repercussions to be pretty serious. And she is usually pretty careful - which unfortunately for her, adds to the feeling that this was more than a simple gaffe...

[hijinx87]

9. I would like to see it as a gaffe.

I am obviously a hillaryite (dons flame proof boxer shorts ;)), but these candidates
get their wheels run off during an election. they get tired, and they say strange
things sometimes.

the same has happened with obama.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. It has, but as I said above

the possible results of her remarks are far more serious.

At the very least it was incredibly thoughtless - in every sense of the word.

I think the gaffes Obama has made have been that - and they may have pissed people off - but he's the one who pays for that.

In this case, there's the very real risk that *he* would pay for *her* gaffe. That's what concerns me.

[sandnsea]

5. There is no CA primary in June anymore

All the primaries will be over which is completely different than 1992 or 1968. June is irrelevant and always has been.

So of all primaries, why'd she bring up THAT year??

[dsc]

10. because it has only gone to June a few times

It isn't like it always does.

[sandnsea]

19. When the calendar was completely different

Or do you not even know how to count months and primaries. 13 in June 1968. Completely irrelevant. No reason whatsoever to bring it up. 1992? CALIFORNIA wasn't until June, there were a lot of delegates to get. June has nothing to do with this primary. It's OVER and the only reason she has stayed in is in case "something happens". Well now we know what that "something" she's been thinking about is.

And you still support her. Unreal.

[dsc]

28. and you think it is OK to discrimate against gays

unreal.

[sandnsea]

30. No I don't, but how is AIDS testing relevant n/t

[dsc]

44. actually you didn't want my blood used regardless of AIDS test

[sandnsea]

50. Which is relevant to this thread how? n/t

[dsc]

59. You started by calling me unreal

you took it personal. Once you do that, then you are fair game. Don't call people names if you don't wish them to bring up your faults.

[sandnsea]

73. lol, unreal, lol n/t

[hijinx87]

78. jeez. stop it. this is a worthwhile topic, and you are about to send it off into the weeds. n/t

[sandnsea]

80. Oh it's utter SHIT, the woman is a viper n/t

[hijinx87]

86. well, there is a well reasoned reply. n/t

[SoxFan]

37. Why not mention 1984?

There was a competitive primary in California that year, won by Gary Hart.

[dsc]

41. actually she should have

it would have been a great example.

[DevonRex]

6. If all she meant was June, then all she had to say was June. nt

[goclark]

33. She is an "experienced" politician

She can not hide behind a gaffe.

She knew exactly what she said and why she said it.

[DevonRex]

38. Yep. She knew. nt

[hijinx87]

81. so, you knew what she knew, too? we have a forum full of psychics.

[hijinx87]

55. june was the actual prompt from the interviewer, fwiw.

read the transcript.

[DevonRex]

69. Read it. Watched the video. She made the same statement before

to Time and a similar one a month later.

And if all she meant was that primaries aren't always over quickly, that was all she had to say. She could even reference Bobby Kennedy not having it locked up until June, but WITHOUT the assassination being mentioned. She has mentioned him getting killed THREE times now, in reference to her staying in the race.

This is just too dark, too tone deaf, to be tolerated by anyone who professes to be the most experienced, ready on day one, etc.

[Bad Thoughts]

11. Meaning: voters after primary season are "bitter"

Let's compare: this is way beyond what Obama said about rural America.

[Crooked Moon]

18. it was a dumb thing to say

but she didn't mention assassination in relation to obama. congressmen and the media have, however.

[Yotun]

12. To me the context is clear

As an Obama supporter I think she's clearly saying there's no urgency to end this to unite the party, because other contests have also gone to June (a misdirection of course, since they also started later). I don't think Clinton would be stupid enough to wish for Obama to be assasinated.

But you know what. Obama and Wright have also been taken out of context so many times- and I know I don't like it, so I won't use the assasination bit. But here's the thing. Hillary was quick to embrace the out of context attacks on Obama and Wright when they occured- the Obama campaign is saying they believe Hillary Clinton and giving her the benefit of the doubt.

So I say bring it on, and let Hillary have a taste of her own medicine. She has been gleefully happy when the media spend news cycles on manufactured controversies on Obama- now the sound-byte loving media will hunt her with this one, and she can know how it feels. And you know it won't go away, because neither the media bother to show things in context, nor the sheeple bother to look to find and understand the context.

[Frustratedlady]

14. She has worded this statement exactly the same way at an earlier interview.

The first time I heard it, I thought it was strange that she would go that far back and (aside from Bill's campaign) stopped there.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a subliminal message and she was called on it.

Shame on Hillary.

[hijinx87]

67. name it. and include a link, please. n/t

[Girlieman]

16. there are plenty of other ways to bring up the fact that primaries go into June

[qijackie]

21. At least ten things....

I'm sure there's at least 10 things that Senator Clinton wishes she hadn't said during her campaign just as I am sure there's at least 10 things that Senator Obama wishes he hadn't said during his campaign. Has little to do with the underlying battle for control of the Presidency and the Democratic party.
As for assasination.... in this country, any Presidential candidate is vulnerable .... being female or being black or being gay or being just about anything different just ups the ante.

[goclark]

39. But we know exactly who she was talking about

[hijinx87]

43. because we are all psychic? n/t

[Emillereid]

26. If all she wanted to do was make a reference to campaigns going on to June she

could have said just that - that both the 1992 and the 1968 campaigns were still going on into June. There was no need to bring up RFK's assassination. This wasn't the first reference to RFK's assassination as a reason for continuing her campaign and those had nothing to do with June. I think her campaign has been hanging on hoping something would happen to Obama -- either some major scandal or 'something.' I think what we witnessed was a unconscious wish on her part that he would be taken out of her way - she wants the presidency that much. I honestly think her blind ambition is dangerous. (No, that is not some anti-feminist remark about it's OK for men to be ambitious, but not for women. Men can also be TOO ambitious.)

[dorkulon]

34. non-apology apology.

She apologized to the Kennedys? I think we can all see the sin of omission in that apology. Something like: "In no way was I implying that Senator Obama would be assassinated, and I apologize if that was inferred by anyone." Nop, just not in there, is it?

[CaptJasHook]

45. Kick for facts

[hijinx87]

51. heck, no one in the forum seem to give a whit for the facts. n/t

[krawhitham]

46. screw the transcript, watch the video

http://www.nypost.com/video/?vxSiteId=0db7b365-a288-4708-857b-8bdb545cbd0f&vxChannel=NY%20Post&vxClipId=1458_291915&vxBitrate=700

[hijinx87]

49. exactly! go to the video! it MUST be more accurate than THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. n/t

[suston96]

53. It WAS about the time frame and she has mentioned it a few times....only in response .....

...to the never ending bullshit about her dropping out. The presumptive nominees can never be sure of anything. Nor can their followers and supporters.

[oviedodem]

54. Here is the problem: why go there?? It is as simple as that.

[hijinx87]

65. well, I admit that you have me on that one. I wish that she had not gone there. n/t

[union_maid]

56. Most of us have seen the complete statement by now

I did. I don't see how the context changes anything.

[suston96]

58. It WAS about the time frame and she has mentioned it a few times....only in response .....

...to the never ending bullshit about her dropping out. The presumptive nominees can never be sure of anything. Nor can their followers and supporters.

Maybe that is what is really going on here.

[hijinx87]

63. the executive editor of the Argus Leader speaks out . . .

"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."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room /

[hijinx87]

75. does no one want to hear the interviewer's point of view?

shall we devolve deeper into flames?

there are plenty of reasons to HATE hillary, but this just isn't one
of them.

[Peace Patriot]

74. You know how people who were alive when JFK was assassinated always remember

where they were, and what they were doing, when that happened--or when they first heard about it. I can tell you where I was, I can tell you what I was looking at on the front page of the L.A. Times when I heard it, where the radio was coming from, that I heard it on, the weather that day, and lots of other details. And most people who were alive then can do the same. It was just the most earth-shattering and unexpected thing imaginable, and it froze that moment in time and individual memory.

I think Hillary was compressing that thought. She says, "We all remember...". I remember that event as well--the assassination of RFK, five years later--and where I was, and what I was doing, etc. It is a shorthand way of saying, "Bobby was still running for the nomination in June...as we all remember...because he was assassinated." We all remember it was June BECAUSE he was assassinated.

I don't believe for a minute that she intended anything but that. She is guilty of sloppy, short-hand speaking, nothing more. But I have to say that, in a presidential candidate, that is not a very good quality. She doesn't seem to hear herself very well. She made the same sloppy thinking, sloppy speaking mistake about "hard-working white" voters, although there I think it was an echo of something real in the back rooms of the campaign. Some scumbag adviser (like Mark Penn) was devising strategy around pandering to white voters, and it was talked about enough, behind the scenes, that she picked up the wording, unconsciously. I am not naive about the sort of talk that may occur in the back rooms of political campaigns (or the White House, or the Senate cloak room, or corporate board rooms). We would be shocked, I'm sure, at what our lords and masters think of the American people, or of our own "demographic group." But a PRESIDENT and PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES have to learn to screen that out. All politicians do, but presidents in particular, because they hold the power of life and death over us all. One wrong word could start a war. It could start a war to end all life on earth. And besides that horror, there are the many other instances of the fate of human beings hanging upon the words that a President might say. Thus, it is very important that a president (or candidate) be able to hear--really hear--her or his own words. Some people have trivialized Obama's magnificent speaking skills--but I don't. I think it is a very important skill. He has made a few gaffes, but they have been nothing like Clinton's, and it is certainly not a habit with him. I don't remember Clinton being this way before the campaign. It appears to be a flaw that has come out under stress.

This is what primaries are FOR. Or one of their great values. I am actually very glad for this tough campaign, even its nastier edges. It has been a testing process, and a vetting process. And it has been an exercise in democracy--a thing that Pukes don't much cotton to. They like to crown their latest fascist princeling. We like to slug it out, and see what's what with a range of candidates, policies and styles of leadership. They got Bush with their process--a moron who has destroyed their party, and nearly destroyed the country. We, on the other hand, have come up with a fully tested, fully vetted candidate, who has inspired nation-saving citizen activism. Some people may feel that their candidate got aced out too early, or never did enter the race. It may be true that unfair, corporate media-controlled exclusions occurred. Others may feel that Obama's and Clinton's policies are too similar (although that is not true on some important issues)--have not presented a real, wide-spectrum choice--and/or, that Obama is not a strong enough reformer. But I think that, all in all--although it has not been full democracy (publicly financed candidates, with free air time--resulting in wide spectrum political debate)--it has been an initial foray back into democracy, from a dark period of fascism.

This rough campaign is actually NORMAL--if you look back in history (for instance, at the foul things said about JFK and his Catholicism, or about FDR, or about Thomas Jefferson). It's rough and tumble democracy. It's a seeking after power and glory--and, hopefully, somewhere in there--the will of the people. Also, in the past, these wounds heal right up, after the fight is over, and the party or the nation moves on. The 1960 Dem convention was a knockdown dragout, as I recall (among three candidates--JFK, Adlai Stevenson and LBJ). It went all the way to the convention. The corporate 'news' monopolies are an added factor in this case. They are stoking up the race/sex divide on purpose, as "divide and conquer." They are rotten to the core. That is new. And I think we should beware. I think the race/sex divide is mostly not real. It doesn't matter to most Americans. They are desperate for good leadership, and relief from Bushitism. I don't think most people care a goddamn whether the good leader they need is a woman, or is mixed race, or is anything else. But it matters to the corporate media, because they would like to destroy the Democratic Party, in a year in which we should sweep the nation in all elections.

A gaffe like this one of Clinton's is a relatively minor matter. A pattern of them is telling, and maybe should be added to our assessment of a candidate, along with other considerations. But it is just the fodder that the corporate 'news' monopolies like to use to DISTRACT US from the really important issues--the war and all the rest--in addition to their gleefully wanting to tear the party apart. They are fascists. They are Bushites. They are the enemy. Don't take your cues from them.

[hijinx87]

77. I completely agree.

it took me a minute to read your whole post, but I got there. ;)

[backscatter712]

83. She screwed the pooch BAD on this one.

Keith said it right - this is the third time she's mentioned Bobby Kennedy's assassination, she had fair warning because the second time around, she toned down her rhetoric, and with regards to primary seasons that run late, there are plenty of other examples to use to make that point.

But she did it anyways. That was downright ghoulish, and makes her look like a vulture, if not worse.

She was intending to take it to the convention? Not after that remark, she isn't!

[hijinx87]

91. name the three!

[backscatter712]

95. First time was in Time, on Mar. 6th.

I'm looking up the second time, though both Hardball and Olbermann mentioned she brought up RFK's assassination twice before.

[hijinx87]

99. links? I am convinceable on this. if this is pattern, I will bail off her bandwagon NOW.

[backscatter712]

104. Here's a link quoting the first time she brought up RFK...

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

I'll admit I'm still looking for the second time.

[Swamp Rat]

100. Her campaign is finished.

Kaput.

[hijinx87]

106. probably.

but those of us that were supporting her for her position on
universal health care will come up empty.

I suspect that most of us (and I certainly will) support him
in november.

[jefferson_dem]

102. Thanks for the transcript. The context has been clear since the video began circulating.

My conclusion is that it was an absolutely ghoulish, irresponsible comment and there's no defending it. Period.