Ouch. This has got to hurt:
The AP currently has an article titled "Analysis: Clinton's latest off-key remark" by a political writer named Delvin Barrett which concludes with this statement:
She insists she can win, but the mathematical explanations for how that can happen grow more fanciful by the week.
And without any clear explanation of how she can win, mentioning the Robert Kennedy assassination to some ears sounds like the last, desperate scenario of someone unwilling to admit defeat.
Double ouch. When even the AP is making such fatalistic statements, Hillary's campaign has got to be getting worried.
The article also points out, as Kos did today, that aside from the RFK comment, her facts were just plain wrong:
Yet the assassination reference wasn't Clinton's only mistake. In the same breath, she maintained that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June. In truth, he did so in March with the Illinois primary. While California made his victory a mathematical fact, the outcome had not been in doubt for months.
Of course, her diehards are attributing it to "fatigue" just as the Tuzla fib was attributed to lack of sleep. Her control of facts seems to slipping, doesn't it?
Her campaign can try to spin this away, but really, how much farther can it go when the mainstream press is calling it your "last, desperate scenario of someone unwilling to admit defeat"?
How do you spin that one?