Hillary Clinton just can’t get out of her own way

There's little doubt, regardless of how you feel about his politics, that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst speaking presidents in history. But Hillary Clinton is in danger of going down as the presidential candidate who's made some of the biggest speaking blunders along the way.

Her latest faux pas came during an interview with a South Dakota newspaper last week. Clinton was trying to explain why she is still running despite overwhelming odds, telling the paper that other nominations have gone into the summer.

'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?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Now let me just say that I do not think Clinton at all meant that there's a chance her opponent Barack Obama would be assassinated before the general election as some people are trying to say. In fact, I never even considered that until I saw a headline suggesting the notion. Still, Clinton's ill-timed and ill-phrased comments continue to hinder her. You may recall earlier in the spring the former First Lady spoke about arriving in Kosovo during her husband's presidency under gunfire. As it turned out, nothing could have been further from the truth.

Misstatements and bad lines are nothing new for candidates. They all make them. Just ask Obama about the "bitter" people of Pennsylvania. The problem for Clinton, though, seems to be that her questionable statements confirm the problem some people have with her: That she is a pure politician willing to say anything to get a vote. That may or may not be the truth. But perception goes far in the court of public opinion. And after nearly two decades of questions about the truthfulness of the Clintons, especially during Bill Clinton's presidency, these sort of stumbles don't help.

The other problem is that it seems Clinton often talks about apples to explain oranges. Consider this latest argument about the length of the campaign. The election calendar has changed dramatically in the last few years, let alone in the last 40. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the nomination overwhelmingly. The first primary (actually, the Iowa caucuses) was Feb. 5 that year, more than a month later than this year's process began. In the end, California was only marginally significant because Clinton's biggest challenger was former California governor Jerry Brown. The race was effectively over before the New York primary in April when Brown told a group of Jewish leaders in New York City that if nominated, he would consider Jesse Jackson, who infamously referred to New York City as "Hymietown," as a Vice Presidential nominee.

The 1968 primary season started even later. The first contest was New Hampshire on March 12, and the Democratic race only featured President Lyndon Johnson and Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota. Bobby Kennedy didn't jump into the race until March 16, after a strong showing by McCarthy in the Granite State. Then on March 31, Johnson announced he would drop out of the race and not seek reelection. That opened the door to several more candidates, including eventual nominee Hubert Humphrey.

The problem is that Clinton, who was, in many circles, the presumptive Democratic nominee about 18 months ago, is trying to argue that she's staying in the race just as long as her husband and Kennedy, which is ridiculous. Kennedy campaigned for less than three months. And when the presidential campaign started in the winter of 1992, most people had never heard of Bill Clinton.

Like it or not, there is still at least a week to go in the Democratic Presidential race. It will be interesting to see how these last few contests shake out, and if Obama can finally bring the race to a point where Clinton has no choice but to drop out, or if Clinton can prove she is indeed the come-back kid.