Hillary Clinton: Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and Media Misrepresentation

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long "

Do you realize that the above statement is NOT TRUE (typicabl for the despicable AP and AOL).  I saw the clip of that interview segment, and part of it is quoted later in the story.

Hillary Clinton did NOT "cie" the assassination of RFK as a REASON for staying in the race.   Rather, she said she was staying in the race because she saw no reason to get out until  the end (which CANNOT come until the convention because superdelegates do NOT VOTE until then, whatever statement of intent they may make).   She was citing how the nomination used to ROUTINELY not be settled until June, and was searching around for examples (Ronald Reagan, for example, went to a convention VOTE in 1976, still tryin g to shake delegates like the "superdelegates" who COULD STILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS).   In searching around for EXAMPLES of the race continuing into June and beyond, Hillary Clinton slightly stuttered and came up with RFK (his assassination in June was part of a CONTINUING CAMPAIGN in June).   Even taken slightly out of context, Hillary Clinton was celarly NOT "citing" the ASSASSINATION as a "reason" for continuing.  Rather, she was saying that there was no reason to get out, and--at most--that things could happen (absolutely true, by the way). 

Now if you look at the tape of this interview, it is crystal clear that Hillary Clinton happened to latch on to RFK as ANMOTHER  example of a monination fight still going on in June, that happened to be dramatically altered.   "Assassination" was NOT the point of her answer, and she was more talking about PUZZLEMENT as to why people wanted to FORCE her out of the race than even about dramatic events that MIGHT happen before the convention to change things (superdelegates do not even vote until then).  IF she were SPECULATING on possible dramatic events she could have cited the following:

1.  Something is reaveled about Barack Obama--for example, a Resco DOCUMENT might appear, or a Reverend Wright DOCUMENT showing Wright was a member of the Obama nomination team until the very end, or some other "scandal". 

2.  Barack Obama might say something REALLY STUPID (more than this manufactured flap)--as you can believe in light of things he HAS said.

3.  Some superdelegates for Clinton, or Clinton herself, migh come up with a way to SWITCH superdelegates to her (some really convincing argument or evidence of her superioority of a candidate that no one has raised yet.

4.  etc  (Use your imagination).

Hillary Clinton's (accurate) POINT in her inverview, completely missed in the FALSE CHARACERIZATION of her interview, was that it is insane to suggest that there is something wrong with her stayig in the race.  The better question is, and this really was her point (see the interview):  What reason is there for me to get out?

Put it this way.  Say something like I suggest above DOES happen.  Is it not a GOOD THING for the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton provides a credible option for superdelegates all of the way up to the convention vote?  Further, might it not be POSSIBLE that Hillary Clinton really believees the Democratic Party should nominate HER, for the good of the party, and wants to give them that option to the very end?