uh, what utter tripe. the questions asked were about past troubled primaries. And guess what, 1968 is a valid example of that. Now if she had dragged MLK's death into it that would have been a big problem. since she didn't all the bleating and gnashing of teeth by the BHO folks is just lies and hot air.

the questions asked were about past troubled primaries.

The two examples she used to demonstrate that races historically go to June were extremely misleading.  Her husband wrapped up the nomination for all intents and purposes in March, not June.  And RFK didn't enter the race until March in 1968.

I actually think that this was a powerful analogy because the event is seared in people's memories.  When Clinton or others talk about the 1980, 1984, or 1992 elections going into June, I kind of think back and wonder, did that really happen? Did it just go on in name or was the outcome still really in doubt?

But when Clinton brings up the 1968 nomination, that evokes a very powerful memory.  Yes, I remember that event, and yes, I also definitely remember that when the event occurred the outcome of the nominating contest was very much in contention (and I was only 14 years old at the time).

I guess just like you can now never use the word "bomb" anytime you are near an airplane (because, even if you are saying it in a perfectly innocent way, somebody somewhere can think you are talking about bombing the airplane), you can now never use the word "assassination" in any discussion related to the presidential campaign (because somebody somewhere can assume that you are raising the specter of a current candidate being killed).

Yes, those two examples really don't work if somebody considers the historical context.  1968 - low point for Democratic unity, riots at the convention, we lose.  1992 - Clinton defeated Tsongas in March, spent the rest of the against Jerry Brown, a previous decade's Mike Huckabee.

Moreover, really what is the takeaway point from the premise that sometimes the nomination race goes into June?  What moral force is one supposed to draw from that?  Sometimes they're over in March, too.

Exactly.  This is what concerns me.  I'll grant that Hillary meant well, but it still raises that fear.  And that fear isn't ineffectual.  It not only bothers us deeply, it leads some people not to vote for Obama.  At the beginning of the race Obama was having a hard time with sections of the black vote because of this fear.  Inadvertantly as it may have been, bringing it up has a real effect.  It's like an unintentional low blow.  You shouldn't be disqualified or anything for doing it, and we can't really get mad at you, but you have to know that it has a genuine effect on your opponent (and in this case his supporters).  Her not apologizing to him is the insane part of this whole thing.

As an Obama supporter I am going to go with a poor choice as a timeline reference and not intentional.

However, as we all know it matters not what the meaning, its the perception. We all say things that mean one thing to us, but when these word hit some else's ear and are translated the words are perceived totally differently than out meaning.

This is where  robust apology is necessary and this is what I did not hear yesterday. Again my perception of her words.

Now those who heard what she said and understood her meaning will say: what does she need to apologize for?" However those who took something else away from her remarks expected more than they got.

In the end those not angered loose nothing in her apology and the angered will start to cool off.

that she has made several times.