The Gaping Wide Hole In Hillary's Excuse: Why Doesn't She Suspend Her Campaign? [View All]

Recently, Hillary had to retract some words she used, multiple times, about RFK's assassination in the context of staying in the race.

Her excuse was as follows:
"I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns of both my husband and Senator (Robert) Kennedy waged in California in June in 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," she said.

It may be a historic fact, but it is also a lie. The question that preceded it was not about the history of the Democratic Primary. It was about her staying in the race. Here is the transcript with the question that just preceded her answer:



She only mentioned the word *history* because historically, races have gone on until June. But that does not justify her reason for staying in. Her justification for staying in is because something bad might happen.

And here is why this wasn't just a misspeak or a gaffe:

Her campaign knows she doesn't have the delegates. They know the popular vote argument is bogus. They realize they are pretty much out of the race at this point.

So, when asked directly, at the editorial review board, why she doesn't support the party and do the honorable thing and resign, she raised the specter of the RFK assassination. And it's not just then, but it has been brought up several times as they have been asked why, given the fact that it would take an "act of God", to end the race, she has twice and her staff has three or four times admitted that is the only reason they are staying in. She has at least twice admitted this and her staff have admitted this at least three other times. They can not win. So why stay in? She's told us: it's the a-word.

And this is the gaping wide hole in that defense: she could easily, respectfully and honorably, suspend her campaign. If, for some God-forsaken reason, something unmentionable *did* happen to Obama, she would be the obvious choice and would become the presumptive nominee. The fact that she is *not* resigning says one of two things: she is either expecting something unmentionable to happen or she is not staying in for that reason. I prefer to think the latter. But when you do give her the benefit of the doubt, you are forced to ask, why did she bring up RFK's assassination then? It doesn't fit and there was no good reason for her to do so if you assume that is not the reason she is staying in the race. Remember, they've admitted this as the reason they are staying in multiple times. So why raise the specter. It clearly was intentional and not a gaffe or a misspeak. So why? There's a gaping wide hole in her defense here. No one wants to look through it.