Reply #29: She was talking about the timeframe

[MonkeyFunk]

I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and 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.

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

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 around the middle of June

EB: June

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

The "Party unity" argument is that we must have a candidate chosen before June, for the sake of party unity. She's pointing to examples where we did NOT have a candidate chosen before June. She's saying the argument that she must get out of the race is, historically, a poor one.

It's so obvious what she was saying that I don't think anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty sincerely believes otherwise. It's an entirely contrived outrage.