Hillary's RFK Thing

I go along with Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, who basically ascribes it to fatigue, arguing convincingly (on Meet the Press--way to go, Ruth!) that Hillary had no self-interest play whatsoever in her mentioning this. And she knows from self-interest.

In particular, who says Hillary would get the nomination if Obama were to be assassinated, anyway? We should remember that the core of RFK supporters avoided commitments to Humphrey and McCarthy, allowing George McGovern to make his dramatic appearance on the national stage in his bid for their votes.

I see it as basically a sentence fragment, in which she failed to finish her thought
...when RFK was assassinated in June, 1968 the nomination was by no means assured for any candidate. "
(Italicized parts added)

Which is a fact, as is the fact RFK was assassinated in June, 1968, and that politically, we can't seem to get over it. 2008 presents yet one more opportunity to finally get it right and get past it. Let's hope it's the last.





And, while I'm plugging the Post, here's an absolutely brilliant analysis by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom of the failures of Bushite policy toward Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html