To me it is the people criticizing Hillary for her remarks recalling the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy who have lost their minds, not the candidate herself.
It's quite clear that Senator Clinton was merely trying to make a point that, compared to the 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton, and the 1968 campaign of Robert Kennedy, her own appetite for staying in the fight for the Democratic nomination does not seem excessive. She was making a point about dates, not about assassination, and certainly not about any concern that somebody might try to assassinate Barack Obama. It is completely illogical to read her remarks that way.
The New York Times pointed out that she made precisely the same point, using her husband's presidential campaign and that of Robert Kennedy as examples, in remarks reported in Time magazine in March. Funny, I don't remember any uproar then.
If her remarks were so offensive, why didn't Robert Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., withdraw his endorsement of Clinton? The Times reported his comments today (May 24): "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."
What was so difficult about understanding that?