The pundit class and blogosphere are in full-blown hyperventilation mode because Hillary Clinton alluded to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

True to their habit of ascribing the most evil motives possible to everything Hillary does, some people are assuming that she made the comment because of an expectation or “morbid fantasy” that something terrible will happen to Barack Obama.

Take a step back and look at what she said in her meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board:

HRC: … You know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since —

Q: Why?

HRC: I don’t know, I don’t know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don’t understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don’t.  Because, again, I’ve been around long enough – you know, 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.  You know, I just – I don’t understand it, and, you know, there’s a lot of speculation about why it is.  But —

Q: What’s your speculation?

HRC: You know, I don’t know.  I find it curious.  And I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people who I don’t really know …

Though I wouldn’t have recommended using that analogy, it seems clear to me that Hillary was referring to the fact that RFK was still campaigning (not having wrapped up the nomination) in June at the time of his assassination.

Many bloggers, including Iowa’s own John Deeth, are mad that Hillary didn’t reference different historical events, such as the Democratic nominating contest in 1972 or the Republican one in 1976. Deeth is convinced that she must have been voicing “a subconscious wish to whack a rival.”

None of us are mind-readers. It’s a sad day when so many Democrats are quick to assume the worst about the Clintons. If I want to hear why everything Hillary does reflects her malicious desires, I can turn on some right-wing radio show.  

And for those who claim Hillary is too smart and politically astute to make any comment by accident, think about it: Does it make sense that Hillary would expect to gain political advantage from mentioning RFK’s assassination?

Isn’t it obvious to anyone who has been watching this campaign that such a comment would cause a firestorm of outrage that would benefit Obama politically?

I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. While explaining that it is historically not unusual for a presidential campaign to go on until the summer, she used unfortunate words. We all make mistakes.

Frankly, I am more bothered by the recent comments of Hillary’s chief fundraising official, businessman Hassan Nemazee:

“There’s a desire on the part of the party to come together under any circumstances, and Hillary and her supporters will do everything in their power to help Obama win, should he become the nominee, whether or not she’s on the ticket,” Nemazee said to me this morning.

“But there’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

To paraphrase Fat Albert, this guy is like school in the summertime–no class.

On one level, he is just stating the obvious: Hillary’s supporters will be more active in Obama’s campaign if she is on the ticket, the same way John Edwards’ supporters became more enthusiastic about John Kerry.

But I don’t care for the thinly-veiled threat to withhold financial support from Obama. This was no slip of the tongue. This was a clear hint that Obama will pay a price if he doesn’t pick Clinton for vice-president.

The Clinton camp should not be making this argument. They can provide other reasons for choosing Hillary as VP without making threats.

I also agree with TomP, who wrote yesterday that this kind of pressure is counter-productive if your goal is to get Obama to pick Hillary:

Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for VP, but that is up to Obama.  The problem she is creating now, however, is that attempts to blackmail Obama in to giving her the VP nomination, which is how I read Mr.  Nemazee’s comments, push Obama into a position where he must refuse her.

If Clinton threats pushed Obama into offering her the VP, he could easily be attacked as “weak” and unable to stand up to Hillary.  Think how McCain and his surrogates would use that.

For the record, I wouldn’t advise Obama to offer Hillary the VP slot, and I wouldn’t advise Hillary to accept it if offered.