In the fallout from Senator Clinton’s referencing the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as an example of how anything can happen to change the landscape, I’ve been impressed, actually, with the restraint shown by most in the media. 

On its face, the comment may be bracing or even chilling in the shadow of the first serious candidacy by an African-American for President. At the same time, though, intellectually there is a point to be taken seriously as well. The real issue is just how tellingly self-serving and self-destructive the comment may have been. 

Here’s Jake Tapper from ABC News: 

“…1968, after all, was also the year of one of the most divisive and ugly Democratic conventions in history….Clinton went on in that same editorial board meeting with the Argus Leader to say ‘…I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention." 

Let's review: 1980 -- Republican wins; 1984 -- Republican wins; 1988 -- Republican wins; 1992 -- Democrat wins; but doesn't reach 50 percent of the vote and is only victorious, in all likelihood, because of the third-party candidacy of H. Ross Perot.
Senator Clinton is too intelligent to have memories of campaigns that dragged on to the Convention, but have amnesia on the results those years. She also didn’t mention the fact that those past campaigns began months later in the season than the current never-ending one did.

The crux of her point for me is simply this – for her to win, something bad has to happen to Obama’s campaign (not necessarily to Obama himself). When has that ever been a winning position? It’s an admission that “I am no better than the one you love, but if I’m lucky, something awful will happen and then I’ll be the one you’re with!” That’s the audacity of harmful hopes! And there’s a former President riding shotgun to boot. Who could’ve predicted the Clinton legacy would devolve to that?