Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

If she were to miraculously pull off the nomination, I'd probably vote for her, but it really deserves to be said that she was not (and has not been) point out facts at all, not with regards to history, nor her chances of winning or deserving the nomination.

I completely agree she wasn't referring to the possible assassination of Obama (though, Olbermann has it right that assassination is not something she should have brought up in the first place), but that's not what's most offensive about her statements anyway. What's offensive is her own twisting of the history, and assumption that we're too stupid to notice. The 1968 primary season didn't start until mid-March, and so her "June" is really the equivalent of this year's early April. And then there's her husband's nomination, which she has little excuse for misunderstanding. That primary season began in early February, so her "June" is really this year's May. Not to mention that while he may not have clinched the nomination until the CA primary in June, the other candidate's saw the writing on the wall and got out of his way (for the most part, and anyone that didn't was entirely negligible). For her to ignore these facts, and twist the history to make it sound like she's not doing anything unusual by sticking around even though it is almost a certain impossibility for her to win, and worse yet, to sometimes insinuate that it's sexism that is driving people to want her to get out of the way, like most previous presidential candidates have had the decency to do once the writing was on the wall, is offensive. At a certain point, her Baghdad Hillary moments go beyond normal political spin and it becomes very difficult to maintain the same level of respect for her.