A lot of people would say mentioning RFK's assassination to prove campaigns run late (as bad as an example as she could find) is knifing people in the kidneys just to get a few points ahead. Political gaffes are important because they don't stop after January 20, 2009.

She was aware of the campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 so why go back to 1968?

How about because the name Kennedy was weighing a little more heavily on her mind in the past few days?

Let's think this through a little. Let's say she suspends her campaign tomorrow and two weeks later the unthinkable happens. Don't you think that the party just might call the second-place candidate – the one who has a ton of pledged delegates, has won the majority of primaries, and who is within a hair's breadth of having more popular votes?

If for any reason Barack Obama can't carry through to November, Hillary is getting the call, whether she campaigns into June or not.

She was asked if it was true that arrangements are being made for her to be obama's VP

"Neither of us has the number of delegates needed to be the nominee, and every time they declare it doesn't make it so. Neither of us do. And I've never seen anything like this. I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees go all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention. I'm ahead in the popular vote. Less than 200 delegates separate us out of 4,400. Michigan and Florida are not resolved. No one has the nomination, so I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of those stories."

she was then asked if she bought the party unity argument.

"I don't," Clinton said. "And again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just– I don't understand it. And you know, there's lots of speculation about why it is, but uh…"

I feel it wasn't a misspeak and she certainly wasn't taken out of context. She was aware of the campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 so why go back to 1968? The only motive for that is to suggest things like assassinations can happen so she wants to be in the race in case it does happen. There is absolutely no excuse to go back to 1968 when you have plenty of other more resent instances in history to use. She is pathetic for wishing death on Obama and those that defend her are just as pathetic.