it is fully understandable that the "other example" justifying senator clinton's rationale for staying in the race has drawn little comment. but it really should, because the nomination process in 1968 has no bearing on the current one, whereas 1992 does.
In brief, senator clinton has refused to acknowledge, since february, anyway, that the nomination can be decided until the delegates' votes are counted in denver. "pledged" delegates are not legally bound to vote for a specific candidate. superdelegates have a responsibility to make up their own minds, and change their minds if they should do so for the benfit of the party.
in fact, it is the right and duty of all the delegates to act in the party's best interests in denver. and as senator clinton is the most qualified candidate, would be the better president, and is more electable, she has a duty not to withdraw, so as to give all the delegates the fullest opportunity to do their duty and choose her.
it would be so easy for senator clinton to shirk her responsibility to the party and the country. but she is clearly not that kind of person.
but it makes me wonder; how was it that her husband wrapped up the 1992 nomination after the california primary? it couldn't have been that he had aquired the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination. was it that his primary opponents were just weak and derelict?
i wish someone would ask her about that.