My idea of a perfect weekday evening is a cup of chamomile-peppermint tea, a sudoku puzzle and an hour with Keith Olbermann. I have to say, however, that his “special comment” the other night ("Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare") didn’t do anything for me.

I was hoping his remarks would help me see what I was missing in the uproar after Hillary Clinton said “You know, my husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” This followed her saying people were still trying to push her out of the race and she didn’t understand it.

I think her logic is flawed as usual; although the California primary is an important one, there's no chance it will still give her the nomination because it was moved up to February this year. But every time I watch video of her comments it still sounds to me as if all she’s doing is using Bobby’s Kennedy’s name as an additional example of primary contests lasting into June. I thought she brought it up because it was an event a lot of people would remember.

Nowhere do I detect anything about the possibility of something happening to Barack Obama. It wasn't as if there was a connection between Bill Clinton's "wrap[ping] up the nomination in 1992" and Bobby Kennedy's being assassinated; Kennedy was killed in 1968.

I had no idea until I heard Olbermann’s comments and read AMERICAblog that the word “assassination” is taboo. Since when?

I’ve considered writing about this for the past few days. I had just about decided not to because I really don’t like Clinton and didn't feel like defending her. Besides, her campaign doesn't hesitate to misinterpret its opponents' statements. However, I changed my mind after reading Dennis Myers’ comments about it ("Misusing Robert Kennedy"). He’s someone I respect, and he didn’t read any more into her remarks than I did. He says, "This controversy has been fueled by shoddy journalism."

I've believed for a while now that the only reason Clinton is still treated like a viable candidate is the media need a subject that will sell ads. Artificial conflict between Clinton and Obama gains more viewers than waiting for the parties' conventions to officially send Obama and McCain out against each other this summer. (My feelings about Clinton's exploitation of the opportunity to be in the news are another topic.)

Robert Reich wrote about "gladiator politics" the other day:

I asked the producer who was talking into my earpiece why I had to rip into my opponent. "We see viewership minute by minute," he said, hurriedly (the commercial break was about over). "When you really go after each other, we get a spike."

It's the spike I'm worried about. I chose not to rip into my opponent but, then again, I'm not running for president. The public says it's tired of gladiator politics. But take a closer look. Political ripping and slashing is is one of America's favorite spectator sports. And the media that informs us about the candidates, and the advertisers who dictate the terms by which they do so, have data to prove it.

Reich probably isn't asked to appear on "news" (talk) shows as often as others with fewer qualms.

As for myself, I've reached a point where I'm sick of gladiator politics even when a competitor I don't like seems to be losing at the moment.