Speaking to The Argus Leader ed board in South Dakota today, Hillary Clinton cited a few historical reasons for staying in the race--including one that seems to suggest... well, read on:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.

Is Clinton really implying that the past is prelude? That a young, come-from-behind frontrunner could be killed on the cusp of winning the nomination and replaced atop the ticket by an establishment Democrat who'd spent some time in the White House? That her party should be worried about history repeating itself? That this possibility is reason enough for her to keep on keeping on?

You can read it that way, I suppose--and many will. But I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. As a Clinton aide told the New York Times this afternoon, "she was simply using the Kennedy assassination as a benchmark to underscore that nomination fights can go a long time and that she was in no way implying anything else." That makes sense; even if the possibility of Obama getting shot has crossed Clinton's mind, she certainly isn't stupid enough to air it in public. How does it help her politically? Still, as "misspeaking" goes, the RFK reference is catastrophically clumsy. Need an example of campaign longevity? Choose, say, Gary Hart. Or Ted Kennedy. Or even Ronald Reagan. All of them fought until the convention--much longer than RFK, who ran for a grand total of less than three months. Also, none of them were assassinated. (UPDATE: Not to mention that Bill Clinton effectively wrapped up his nomination in April 1992, even if he didn't get the majority of delegates until June.)

That said, Team Obama isn't feeling quite as generous as I am. “Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said campaign spokesman Bill Burton. Something tells me that the candidate's unpaid advocates, online and off, will be slightly less restrained in their criticism.

UPDATE: Clinton's response, from Brandon, S.D.:

“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 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. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”

UPDATE, 11:42 p.m.: Two more tidbits for the road.

1. From the New York Times:

Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”

Some may see this as proof of an insidious pattern, but it actually strikes me as exculpatory. In March, Clinton still had a plausible--if not probable--path to the nomination. There was no need to resort to an "Obama could be the new RFK" rationale for continuing her campaign, and that's why no one interpreted her remark as a weird, "what if?" scare tactic at the time. Now, however, Clinton's persistence looks a lot less logical--meaning the RFK reference looks a lot more sinister. "Maybe THAT'S why she's hanging on" was the collective response. But as the New Republic's Michael Crowley notes, Clinton "was talking about the calendar in historical terms--not the uncertainty of the process." In both cases. So it's not the content of her comments that's changed--it's the context.

2. From reader "Ammo":

Now the thing is--and I'm the last person to give her the benefit of the doubt because she's been plain vicious over the past six months--if she did drop out now, and then something tragic did happen to Obama, wouldn't she still be in the premium spot for the nomination?  Logically, a stay-in strategy informed by that awful scenario doesn't make sense: whether she's in or out of the race officially, she's still got to be the second choice for Dem nominee based on her campaign successes. So wouldn't it make more sense that this is just an awful, stupid choice of words?

I say absolutely. And in this supercharged climate, that may be bad enough to bring her bid to an end.