By now we've all heard Hillary Clinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination, her apology for invoking it and the backlash her campaign has suffered a week before the final two states and a territory vote in the Democratic primaries.

But what has been lacking from most news reports of the New York senator's words from Friday is a historical check that more or less proves her wrong.
Clinton told the Argus Leader editorial board in Sioux Falls, S.D., that she is staying in the race, which is nearly impossible for her to win at this point, because "historically," the nomination hasn't been wrapped up until June.

She said, "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."

Well, that's not exactly right. Former President Clinton pretty much secured the nomination in March 1992, when his closest rival dropped out and gave him a gigantic delegate lead over the next-closest candidate. That was three months before mid-June, and after the February primaries.

And as for the Kennedy reference, the senator had only entered the race in the middle of March 1968. Illinois Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February 2007. Clinton had announced hers a month earlier.

But according to Clinton, the attempt of "people" who urge her to quit the race is "unprecedented in history."

It's understandable that the most newsworthy item of Clinton's gaffe at the newspaper is how she invoked a reference to Kennedy's assassination as Obama takes the final steps toward being the country's first serious black candidate. It's also newsworthy in light of Senator Edward Kennedy's recent cancer diagnosis.

But two months ago, we were hearing about how the former first lady ducked sniper fire on a diplomatic trip to Bosnia (proven wrong by TV footage). We heard her taking credit for drafting legislation for a popular children's health insurance program (proven wrong by interviews and reports).

Now the senator's most recent comments making headlines are under scrutiny for being potentially offensive, or insensitive, or inappropriate. But they are also wrong when held up to historical context.