I don't think it required her clarification as much as the full context. When I read the initial news reports that only included the one line I was stunned. When I saw the full text, and then the video, her meaning was pretty clear.
It was a bad example to use for sensitivity reasons and because it doesn't show what she claims it shows, but I knew what she was trying to say.
She was invoking RFK for an emotional tie in with her campaign, not to imply what you are saying. Her example that campaigns run through June has more emotional weight (even though the examples were false) to use her husband and JFK, than they would using Carter or someone else that lost.
That said, she should have known better than to use the word 'assassination'. She used it once in March, then avoided the word for weeks, and then used it again.
She was not making the argument, or implication, that you are claiming. IMO
No, that isn't what happened. They sent an email linking to KO's special comment to their media contact list the next day. I think they were wrong to do that but it is standard practice. Hillary's campaign does the same thing.
I think your update is a bit misleading. I've only seen one or two say that Hillary actually meant something horrible when she made the statement. Quite a few are saying she should have appologized and that she should have known better for using the example, but that's not the same.
A big difference (but by no means the only one) to Linfars delusional comparison is that the Tibetan dissident is fighting for a noble cause, while Linfar is doing nothing but spreading filth and hate.