Scanner

The whole "outrage" over Clinton's comment was ridiculous, as even Robert Kennedy Jr. noted.  Her point was that contests for nominations go into June, so the current race was not an anomaly.  Her reference to RFK's assassination simply reflects how memory works, "I remember RFK was assassinated in June, and that was right after he won the California primary, so obviously the nomination contest was still going on in June."  (BTW, you can add 1976 to that list, when Jerry Brown won the California primary in June, but could not stop Jimmy Carter from receiving the nomination.)

The idea that Clinton was somehow speaking in code to mean that she's staying in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated is as stupid as it is offensive to Clinton.  If, God forbid, Obama were assassinated, it wouldn't matter if Clinton -- or anyone else -- had dropped out.  The Democratic Party would have to nominate someone, and she'd be the most obvious choice.

@profrobert: Don't be so naive as to think that this wasn't said without a nudge and a wink.  She knows exactly what she's doing.  She wasn't above pandering to racists and she's not above reminding people that its no secret that Obama is a target to crazies.  

I was about to comment, but profrobert beat me to it.  A well-composed answer to another kind-of-dumb post from Brian Fairbanks.  I believe Brian's a smart guy--he certainly seems well-informed enough--but the comedic tone of Scanner mixed with his knowledge keeps resulting in dumb analysis.

It may be offensive to Senator Clinton that her every utterance is parsed for ulterior meaning, but it is not stupid for the media or the public to sift through her speeches and statements until they discover what "is" is. Her prior statements and actions have given them cause to wonder what she is really saying.

Previously, she "misspoke" when she made statements about landing under sniper fire, which it turns out were prepared statements, repeated at different events. Had reporters accepted her words and excuse for using them at face value, they and we would have been duped.

Here, she's used the RFK tragedy twice to reference a campaign that dragged into June, and everyone should question her meaning and motives for using that particular event. As profrobert noted, the Carter campaign was more recent, as was the '84 Mondale campaign. Shouldn't they have been referenced, too (or better yet, instead of the Kennedy campaign)? It's worth asking given that the primary landscaped has changed significantly those election years. One, Super Tuesday made late primary runs rare. Two, in '68, '76, and '84, primary victories were not proportional, as they are now. They were winner take all. California was a huge primary prize and it was in June. This year, there aren't any destiny-changing primaries left. So it doesn't make sense to reference Kenendy's late run in today's context. It does make sense for the public, as a consequence, to search for a context under which her reference does.

Senator Clinton is a smart political operative and formerly a lawyer by profession. Given that, to dismiss any rehearsed or prepared comments as senseless or misstatements. Words, to her, have always matter and a lot.

Some of the conclusions other may reach as they search for meaning may be unflattering and, in some cases, far-fetched. But it is not stupid for them to question what it is she means given her track record and present strategy.

 Against all odds, I surmised that HC was reminding all that it isn't over until it's over.