basically, ShrillRod is hoping for one more Obama "scandal" to torpedo him, whatever it is. She is a vindictive, ruthless poli-bot.

Do these guys comprehend the longterm effect of Supreme Court nominees (possibly three) in our lifetime, or do you date 90 year olds? Hell, I'd vote for Hillary if they rip the nomination away from Obama by hook or crook as opposed to the alternative. If the Dems lose this election you can throw out the chances of any humane gay rights along with a woman's right to choose, just for starters. f**k fairy tales, this is reality.

Dean said it needed to happen by June & so apparently Clinton has agreed. I think we need to stop spending our energies over the nominees. Unless there is some BIG Obama scandal from here to then, I think the inevitable is gonna happen...Let's all now take a big deep breath & release a big sigh of relief.

I have a question- and I know this might come acrossed as ignorant...

Why does everyone keep saying that Obama is a "black" candidate only.... it seems like everyone is so insistant on idenifying Obama as "black", when he is truly biracial.

I feel like one of the reasons my initial stronger support of Obama has decreased is because he has gotten away from his uniting America- talking about the diversity of his background more- why he represents understanding the common American.... that is why I was so drawn to him since the big Dem speech he made at the convention on his first national stage...

It seems as if the media and even himself- he has drawn himself away from that and is focusing on his "black" roots..... I think that hurts his appeal a bit....

*100% Obama or Hillary supporter*- I don't care what happens as long as McCain does not win.

I agree. During the TX SD/County conventions many of the Clinton supporters were so driven to support the candidate they couldn't think about the interest of the party. I also found this attitude with Obama supporters. I imagine you would find the same attitude if the race were closer from the Obama camp.

I hope this does end soon so we can start a healing process before the convention. If we take this fight to the convention floor we have less than eight weeks to mend the fences and work hard to beat McCain.

Obama has a lot to offer for the Democratic party. We've got to move past the rhetoric and get down to real issues.

Obama's experience shows the reality of race: despite his mixed background, and that a vast majority of Americans (most Latinos, very many African-Americans, etc.), race is viewed in narrow, and often negative ways, because of RACISM. Obama often speaks about his mother, but the reality is that most people who look at him see a black person, a black man. And he is black. But he's also white. Like millions of people in this country. In a recent newspaper piece I read one person saying she wouldn't vote for Obama because, despite his record, she was convinced he would promote "minorities" etc. That ignorance, related to racism, is what he faces every day, just as there are lingering sexist issues Hillary Clinton faces.

Then you've got Clinton trumpeting her "hard-working white" support yesterday, as if to say that educated whites and all African Americans were NOT "hard-working." Where does that leave her and her husband, both of whom are Yale graduates? I mean, the issues of race, racism, racial mixture, history, etc., aren't ever dealt with fully or honestly, which is why when many voters see Obama, they see only one thing: a black man, for better or worse.

Kick I agree with you. Regarding Obama though...everyone keeps saying Obama is a black candidate because thats how people view him. Most people I know who are bi-racial identify themselves as African American because thats the reality of race in this country. Many ignorant people in this country still follow the "one drop rule" (i.e. one drop of black blood makes you black). I'm of mixed race, am fair skinned, and have curly/straight hair but make no mistake, I know the reality of how people look at things in this country. Sure I have scottish/irish in me but that hasn't stopped me from being called the 'n' word. Barack Obama is a man of color bottom line and many people look at his features and won't grasp the concept of his diverse background. Halle Berry is the same way. Her mother is lily white but she's identified often times as the first African American female to...blah...blah...blah. She pretty much gives the same reasoning in identifying that way because that is how the world is going to see her. If we lived in a world where race and skin color didn't matter then she wouldn't have to do that.

Of course you then take Tiger Woods who clearly will acknowledge all of his diversity by calling himself Caublanasian, but to many folks he's just another 'n-word'

Co-sign on everything fantomas said.

Sometimes I think I am an idealist when I need to be realistic and a realist when I need to be idealistic.

Isn't that sort of self-defeating? Or perpetuating/enabling that "one drop rule"? What if she and others like her insisted on being called biracial? "So, Halle, how does it feel to be the first black female to--" "Excuse me, I'm biracial."

But it's not "biracial" because most African Americans are already mixed, and a number of White Americans are as well. Race is always fluid, and people should have the right, given that race is not a fixed biological entity, to identify as they so choose. Also, why is calling oneself "Black" or "African American" "self-defeating"? What's defeating about being Black? Seriously? Hell, John McCain's daughter Bridget calls herself "Black" (as does his wife Cindy) and Bridget's from Bangladesh!

Thank you for taking that one fantomas re: it being self-defeating. I was already in a pissed mood when I oroginally read that and was praying someone responded in a more professorial way than I would have. Sure I could call myself biracial but I don't. I have no problems identifying as African American even though I have Puerto Rican, Scot/Irish, and Black heritage. Even though I get the "is one of your parent's white" or "are you mixed" or "are you latino" questions, I was raised with a strong black and latino upbringing.

Um, because he's not Bill Belichick?

I believe all people are born with equal capacity for good. But to say an adult, especially one George W. Bush's age, is "good at heart" is, I think, to make a value-judgement of what he has done with that capacity since birth.

My "bi-racial" nieces and nephews have had varying approaches. One teenaged niece obviously self-identifies as black and uses the term "half-breed" in a defiant tone reminiscent of how many blacks use the N-word. Her younger brother is indistinguishable from any white skateboarder on the beach where he works for the summer, until you notice the huge "natural", and those perfect brown-skinned features that make girls of all colors line up to be his next girlfriend. I don't think he gives a damn about politics, unless it helps him score.

One of the things that pissed my niece off most was having kids doubt that she was really a child of her white mother when the mother came to school. But since she's 6' 2", 250 lbs and a center for the basketball team she doesn't catch a lot of flak - in her face at least.

BTW - The daughter and mother seem to agree they like Obama. I think the son would be more interested in his daughters.

Yeah...sometimes I say mutt because I get sick of having to break down all of it. Mmm...perfect brown skinned features. Reminds me of my childhood friend whose mother was white and father was black. OH...MY GOD...he was my first boy crush. In the summer he just had this amazing golden brown tone and these luscious red lips and this curly dirty blonde messy hair and he was so tall and had an ass of death. Mmm...takes me back.

I'm not saying otherwise. But I would hope that someone like Halle Berry has a better reason to call herself black than "because that is how the world is going to see her." A good portion of "the world" sees gay people as family-destroying, child molesters, immoral, etc. and we don't accept that.

That comparison doesn't really work here imo. You can't look at someone and see gay (most of the time). You can look at someone and see that they are black, or not white. Of course she has better reasons to call herself black rather than because its how the world sees her. But, it is a major factor because thats reality. We haven't found that utopia yet where race doesn't matter. It does. And look at Barack Obama. Its often a double edged sword with many of us who are biracial. You aren't fully accepted by white people and what was the question in the minds of many blacks when Obama first ran...."Is he black enough?"

Andrea Mitchell had some interesting comments yesterday about where Hillary is at with the race now. She said Clinton is tellin gpeople privately that she doesn't think Barack can win this fall, and that he doesn't have the coalition to do that....we shall see...and Tucker Carlson had some thoughts about West Virginia. His line of thinking is that Hillary will win big there, and the vote will be anti-Obama...again I am liking to think that because this has been such a fierce battle that feelings in both camps are rather raw, and that given that John McCain is the only other option( not an option with me) these votes will be for Barack in November...we hope so anyways!

Yeah I really think we have to take thes current polls with a grain of salt. Obama is back up polling stronger than Hillary in a general election matchup with McCain. I think there is a lot of bitterness right now from Hillary supporters, particularly women who feel as though she's owed this in some way, and who are also hurt because they somehow feel it is her time to be the history setting person as the first woman party presidential nominee. I don't know. I also saw that 73% of Clinton supporters want Obama to pick her as her VP. Only 43% of Obama supporters want that. If he picks her he is also picking Bill Clinton. I just think picking her kind of messes up the whole "turning the page on old Washington" rhetoric that he's been talking about. I like some of the other VP names that have come up like Strickland of Ohio, Webb of Virginia, Kane of Virginia, Richardson of NM, Sebelius of Kansas (even though I agree with pundits that she's not that experienced either) or Wesley Clark with his military experience.

Oh and somehow I don't think Hillary will be going on SNL anymore.

Nope, not after the last skit with their version of Hillary.

You mean the one where she said she has no ethics, her supporters are racist, she'll stop at nothing, etc...? If so, that was pretty funny.

Thats the one Tennis.

Indeed. There was a fine line between comedy and truth there.

So the networks basically gave HRC WV (weird to be talking about WV on a subject other than college FB or BKB in here). Nothing new there. Maybe this is how she can start to make her swan song out of the race. Yes, she's said she'll stay in until the R&B committee meeting May 31 and see what they do about MI and FL. However her campaign is so deeply in debt there's rational thinking that should say call the ball now and don't go deeper in debt.

The only thing I can think is keeping this campaign afloat is an ego and a bunch of staffers that are afraid of job losses and fat salaries. I'm not talking about the scores of line staffers who get paid meager salaries and do the real work (hats off to their diligence and commitment). I'm talking about the inflated egos at the top who get paid big bucks to screw the whole campaign up.

Arghhhhh!

Can somebody please tell me why CNN and all of the Democrat "heavy weights" continually kiss Donna Brazile's ass. I am watching the WV coverage and there is so much focus on her treasured Super Delegate vote. This is the same alleged political "strategist" who designed the stupid Gore "populist" startegy and put Bush in the White House.

She must be laughing all the way to the bank...so I guess she's not that stupid after all.

Loved it when she and Paul Begala nearly got into a catfight over Obama and race or whatever the subject was.

For the first time I heard her start talkin' like a s'uthan Louisiana momma and getting all up in Begala's face: two brilliant progressive tacticians who finally found something they could disagree about in public.

Begala's dissections of Tucker Carson on Crossfire were meat and potatoes for me for a long time. And Brazille's new Democrat leanings have always given me pause: The GHW Bush affair scared her?

But I'll admit that this ladies ire is not a thing to be toyed with. Good for Begala that he was in a remote site.

She's also on Rules and Bylaws, the committee that's supposed to decide if MI and FL are in play and, if so, how they are in play. She has a hand in the mix on May 31. So far she hasn't tipped her hand as to which way she's going to lean.

She makes for good TV anyway, almost as good as Carville and Matlin.

In such humor, there was also truth to what was said. Humor only covered the true points made.

Joe, I agree with you on this.

One question I asked a while ago is this: if Obama and other black people who are mixed race have identifiable white ancestors, what would happen if they started calling themselves "white" too? I've asked several white people I know this question, and they all said they hadn't really thought about it, but they'd be a little surprised at first. And then doesn't this apply to any person who's a mixture of any of the races?

Ultimately we're all Africans, many generations back....

And John Edwards has announced this afternoon he i ssupporting Obama. Came as no surprise to me at all. He had espoused many of the same change views that Obama has talked about.

The second big super announces. The shift is happening. Let's see if HRC still wants to claim she is the best nominee after tonight. Call the ball and move on lady. Save your dignity.

John Edwards' endorsement is huge, and is probably the one key endorsement Obama needed. On ABC News, a senior Clinton advisor said, "Obviously that's not good news for us." Really? Ya think?

I'm still hoping Edwards will be on the ticket. Seven percent in West Virginia and he wasn't even running tells you a lot about where his attractiveness and detailed policies about economics would complement Obama's big picture mentality about those and other issues. And it could bold well for the future of the party because of Edwards youth as compared to other possible running mates.

The need for an experienced running mate to balance Obama's lack of it is way overblown IMO. And the move to force Hillary Clinton onto him will certainly distract from achieving the goals of either one of them - unless her goal is simply to become president - which I don't think it is, contrary to what many have said.

She could be a force on the Supreme Court. Though Obama's knowledge of good candidates in that field may be quite wide considering his background, I am sure she would have an excellent chance of being nominated - and not as the result of some backroom deal.

I've been reading "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin on the inside stories of the Supreme Court over the past several decades. In reading the backroom aspects of the Court and those that get selected she is far from a nominee for the Court. She would never make it through confirmation even with a Democrat majority. Her views are too polarizing, even compared to Scalia and Thomas. Her background doesn't lend herself well to a body such as the Court.

Dont' get me wrong. She'd be a great jurist but not for the highest court in the land. My guess is the reason she is holding onto this race for so long is that she sees this as the end of her political road. She either remains a distinguished senator or moves on to the race for the presidency, which is quickly slipping from her grips.

Last night I had a conversation with a friend who is in a race for a Court of Appeals position. He was the odds-on favorite up until a couple of days ago. It's a position he's dreamed of all his life. This was his time. Now an opponent who is neither qualified nor deserving has overtaken his lead with only one week to go. You could hear the despair in my friend's voice as we talked. He can't understand how this happened and doesn't know how to accept it. He's going to fight all the way to the end.

I mention this only to say that I now understand why she fights so hard. It's been her dream since a student in college. She's climbed to this position through hard work and courage. Now it's being taken away from her by a young up-and-comer. It's not fair in her eyes. I feel for her on this but just as I told my friend, it just may not be. If it isn't, accept and move on to bigger things in other ways.

I can't see Hillary on the Supreme Court. Frankly, she is too focused on herself to be effective as one of nine jurists. Also, as a Supreme Court justice she wouldn't really be able to speak out on some of the issues about which she's been traditionally vocal. However, her background, her debating skills, her political experience, and her general pugnaciousness would lend themselves to a stint as Attorney General. She'd remain in a high profile position without having to open her life - and her husband's - to the examination a career in elected office requires.

Of course, Edwards probably covets the Attorney General position as well.......

I think that's one of the main reasons she's held on, and will continue to do so, damage to the party's chances be damned.

She was in the lead for so long, having what seemed to be a "given" taken away has to be difficult. I do think she went as far as feeling entitled because of it. She stayed with her husband, who humiliated her on a grand scale (or she knew all along and hoped to play the pity card) for reasons that aren't hard to understand either, yet another reason I got the feeling she felt she was "owed" something.

However disappointed and maybe even angry she may be, her inability to step aside and do the right thing for the party and for the country, for that matter, just makes her look arrogant and selfish.

Well....this is certainly more troubling signs for the Dems in November. I tell ya...this "boo hoo my candidate didn't win" is getting on my nerves. I can't believe I fell into it for a few days. Clearly the thought of John McBush winning slapped me back into reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women Threaten Obama Boycott
May 15, 2008 5:04 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

I've posted a few times in the last two days about female supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who are angry -- at the Democratic Party, at the Obama campaign, or at the general situation that sees their candidate facing tough times, in their view, in part because of sexism.

Just talked to a 55-year-old Columbus, Ohio resident named Cynthia Ruccia, a spokesperson and organizer for a group calling itself "Clinton Supporters Count Too." She said the group -- numbering in the hundreds, and organized in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan -- stands ready to boycott the Democratic Party if Clinton doesn't win the nomination, and will work against superdelegates who support Obama over Clinton as a means of registering their displeasure with the party.

"We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee," the group said in a press release Thursday. "We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don't listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later."

Ruccia tells ABC News that she believes "millions" of women share her group's views, though they have only begun to make contact with like-minded women. They're disgusted, she said, that Democratic Party leaders haven't more aggressively denounced sexist media comments and coverage in the campaign, and are angry at the drumbeat for Clinton to get out of the race.

"We're just at the boiling point," Ruccia said. "Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we've had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee."

Part of their plan, she said, is a primary-night boycott of NBC and MSNBC during next Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, particularly to protest comments made by Chris Matthews and David Shuster that her group feels were sexist.

Ruccia said she doesn't necessarily view the disqualifying of delegates from Florida and Michigan as sexist in itself, but added: "I do believe the people there will not forget that Sen. Obama stood in the way of having their vote counted."

This is one group, and not a very large one at this point. But in gauging the fallout among female voters of this divisive campaign, it's also worth keeping in mind what's going on in the wake of NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse Obama on Wednesday.

As documented by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, NARAL blogs are being overwhelmed, and many state affiliates are angry at the national group's decision.

Emily's List is furious. And Martha Burke, former chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, tells Stein she is "disappointed": "It feels like they are abandoning a known ally for a less committed candidate because they want to jump on a bandwagon. I think the pro-choice community should stick by a woman who has stuck by them."

It's impossible to know at this point how big an issue this would be for Obama if he's the nominee. But clearly he would have some major work to repair rifts inside the party -- even if little of it is his fault, directly.

I confess to being a man who has not always seen what his female friends and colleagues see as sexist in this race. What do you think? Has Sen. Clinton faced particular (unfair) challenges because of her gender? More than Sen. Obama has faced because of his race?

-- Rick Klein

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...n-threaten.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok...Obama is not to be blamed for the "liberal, sexist" media and he can't help it if superdelegates back the person with the popular vote, states won, and pledged delegate lead. Perhaps these women need to ask Hillary how the hell she bungled up her campaign so much. Obama has not once said that Hillary needs to get out of the race but I am not confident at all that if the situation was reversed that HillBill wouldn't be out there saying how Obama is hurting the party, was delusional because of the math, was hypocritical because of the pledge that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, and needed to drop out for the sake of the overall goal of winning in November. Look at this point I'm over not wanting Hillary on the ticket. Just win the freaking White House for godsake.

Now that she can't win it, why is Hill in it?

Very interesting article Joe. Thanks for posting that.

The two camps Hillary-Obama are now talking to and between each other, looking to mesh very carefully and in a way thats done right.

My understanding is that she meets the minimal qualifications. And that the senate is considered less likely to reject one of its own based on political views. A democratic majority would be in her favor even if political views were considered. Even "conservative" dems like Casey would probably support her rather than reject based on a "wedge" issue like abortion IMO.Sorry about your friend, especially if he is gay. But his experience may highlight the political aspect of appointments. Again I think her senatorial office would be an advantage for Clinton. And I would dread having her in the attorney generals office after the campaign she waged against Obama. That office has already been sullied by individuals with highly partisan motives. Edwards would be a far better choice based on temperament and experience IMO. And if I were king he'd have it for the asking.

Ok so Hillary brings up the assassination of Robert Kennedy today in June 1968 as one of the reasons she is staying in the race. Her exact quote was:

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.

Now I agree that she should be able to stay in the race as long as she wants because you never know what can happen. There could be some huge Obama scandal that could explode or the superdelegates may decided to vote with her....I don't know. In any event, to bring up the assassination just seems very creepy to me. I mean yes we know that anything like that could happen, but its one of those things you just don't say. My god this woman is reaching for anything.

Wow...the news cycles and blogs are picking up on this with fervor. Here is one I read on AOL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary: What if Barack Gets Assassinated?
By Tommy Christopher
May 23rd 2008 4:03PM

Wow. The shark has been jumped so many times, by so many people, this primary season that it's hard to believe someone could top them all. Hillary Clinton has reinvented the shark-jump. From the NY Post: (click Here for video)
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"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. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
I am stunned. So, apparently, is the Obama campaign, who issued a brief statement. Via email:
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Brief comments after the jump.

I just read this, so the whole thing is still hitting me. Maybe I'll feel differently later, but right now, my heart is sinking.

I have long been an admirer of Hillary Clinton, as a leader, as a pioneer, as a role model for young women. I have taken frequent exception to the tactics employed by her campaign, but my personal admiration for her never wavered. I am afraid it has just been vaporized.

Before you try to defend the "pragmatism" of her statement, think for a minute about what would actually happen if she dropped out and Senator Obama was tragically cut down. She would most certainly become the nominee. This was as cynical and shameless a political act as I have ever seen, and I am heartsick over it.

Say it ain't so, Hillary. Say it ain't so.

Update: I want to say one more thing, and perhaps I will have some better-collected thoughts tonight, plus any updates. The response from the DNC and the remaining superdelegates should be swift and unmistakable. It is time to end this. It is time to send a message, that there are limits to what you can say to try to win an election.

I cannot even contemplate the possibilities if she stays in. Whether she meant to or not, she may have just drawn a bullseye on Obama, and dropping out might not even erase that. Shame on you, Hillary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every time I think Hillary can't become more pathetic, she does. Saying she doesn't need to drop out because "as we all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," is unbelievable and indefensible. She is a disgusting person.

Why would a Democratic candidate make a comment like that one? The only good that will come out of her remarks is the likelihood that it will prompt a big number of previously uncommitted superdelegates to come out of the woodwork and move to Obama over the next 48 to 72 hours.

Don't do it Hillary. Don't give up.


TRL

About to leave for the Memorial Day weekend holiday but Keith Olbermann's special comment tonight will be on Hillary's comment referring to the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Ooooo...can't wait for that one. He's gonna light into her ass.

The statement was just...I don't know. But wtf...she apologized to the Kennedys but mentioned no apology to Obama. I thought she was smarter than that.

For what it's worth, Hillary has "apologized":



For what it's worth...actually, it's not worth anything. Even the reference to her husband not clinching until California in June isn't relevant. He had a solid lead (if I recall) and won that huge state, but California moved the primary. There are no more big states.

There was one of those hourly news updates here on our local Air America affiliate, and the local chapter president of Hillary's campaign resigned today after Hillary's Kennedy comments, saying she could no longer represent her.

Hillary crossed a line today from which she may have a hard time ever recovering politically.

Also, California had a new poll out today. Hillary -- in a state she won -- is now viewed unfavorably by more than half of all voters. McCain, like Hillary, is viewed unfavorably (53%) in California by the majority of voters. Obama, though, enjoys a 59% favorable rating. And most importantly, in the head-to-head presidential matchup, Obama is ahead of McCain by a whopping 17% in California (54 to 37%) in the new poll. McCain has said he thinks California could be in play, but I seriously doubt it.

I agree, but I do (sort of) feel for her. With the unbelievable length of the campaign and level of media saturation, this kind of gaffe is a near-certainty. Obama had it with the "clinging to guns and religion" comment, also in front of a smaller group.

Luckily for her, this happened on the Friday before Memorial Day, but this issue is NOT going away. It might be the final nail in the coffin for her campaign...and frankly there have been a lot of nails already.

When I read about this, I said, "What the hell was she thinking?!" This is from Salon.com today:

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

Friday, May 23, 2008 16:59 EDT
Defending campaign, Clinton cites RFK assassination

During a meeting with the editorial board of the Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper, on Friday, Hillary Clinton brought up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as she attempted to explain why she's still in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Kennedy was assassinated in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968, just after he'd spoken to supporters about his victory in the California presidential primary, which had been held June 4.

Unsurprisingly, this comment has become big news because of the discussion of assassination. The suggestion that Barack Obama might be a target because of his race has been floated before, and he has been the subject of threats -- after his victory in the Iowa caucus, the Secret Service reportedly increased the size of Obama's security detail, making it one that rivals even President Bush's.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton e-mailed reporters with a link to the New York Post's coverage of Clinton's comment. In a statement included in the e-mail, Burton said, "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Mo Elleithee, a Clinton spokesman, told the New York Times, "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into it beyond that is outrageous."

Update: Just after this post was published, the Clinton campaign sent reporters a statement from Clinton herself, which reads:

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.

Update 2: At Time's Swampland blog, Karen Tumulty notes that this isn't the first time Clinton has referenced her husband's campaign and RFK's assassination when talking about the length of the campaign. She did it in March, in an interview with Time, as well. As Tumulty observes, "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."

On a personal note, the catch Tumulty made is one of my pet peeves about Clinton. Too often she (or whoever writes her statements) tries to go one extra mile beyond what's necessary just to explain herself, and that extra mile ends up being demonstrably untrue -- or at least giving that impression. She didn't need to excuse her comments by saying she was thinking about Sen. Ted Kennedy's health trouble recently, she could have just said she was trying to make a point about the race for the nomination going into June, and that would have been fine on its own. Instead, she looks like a liar, even if you think her earlier comments were completely innocent. This is what I meant when, in a post I wrote earlier this month about what the Clinton campaign had done wrong, I said they failed to make her seem human. A lot of people already think of her as an insincere person willing to say anything to get elected -- why confirm their suspicions?"

On another subject, Hillary supports the idea of Puerto Ricans voting in the U.S. elections for the president, something I agree with 200%. She will visit the island this weekend, as well as Obama.

Spouting the RFK reference once could have just been a gaffe. Twice in a two month period = tactic. Shameful tactic.

OR

"The wish is the father of the thought" - Wm Shakespeare

It was one of Olbermann's best special comments ever. Watch the video here.