In my opinion, Senator Clinton raised the specter of Bobby Kennedy's assassination as a last-ditch, desperate attempt to weaken the resolve of the superdelegates to support Barack Obama as our party's nominee.

First, it's clear to me--although Clinton supporters around these parts are conveniently ignoring the fact--that the Kennedy tragedy is a ridiculous rationale for remaining in the race.  In effect, Clinton is saying that, because something terrible could happen to the frontrunner, it's necessary that she refuse to concede.  That's patently ridiculous.  Had she not made this offensive, prejudicial statement, she would have been the consensus choice to replace Obama, were he for any reason unable to be our nominee.  It wouldn't matter if she withdrew, conceded, asked all her supporters and delegates to back him.  If he wasn't the nominee, she would be.  Or would have been.  As of tonight, a growing number of commenters here and elsewhere are opining that she has dramatically undercut her already slim chances at the nomination, at the second spot on the ticket, even at a future run.  And no, these are not the words of "desperate" Obama supporters.  Obama supporters have no reason for desperation.  (Note that the parallel with her husband's 1992 race is equally weak: In '92, California in mid-June was vital to the nomination, but there's no game-changer left on the calendar.  But as Senator Clinton knows, she has run out of logical arguments.)

Second, this wasn't, as one diarist has suggested, the words of a tired candidate.  Clinton has now raised the specter of the Kennedy assassination four times.  Why?  It goes to Obama's electability.  Last fall, many voters of various races believed that an African American candidate could not be elected president in 2008.  Many African Americans believed this to be true, and only the results of lily-white Iowa persuaded them otherwise.  As the math, so disdained of late by some Clinton supporters, has made her chances go from long to remote to vanishingly unlikely, Clinton has tried to sell varieties of the he cannot be elected meme.  First, it was Reverend Wright that would disqualify him--except that more voters cared about McCain's ties to Bush and Clinton's looser ties to trustworthiness.  Then, it was those "hard-working white Americans" who wouldn't support him.  They certainly didn't in West Virginia, Kentucky, and other parts of Appalachia.  But they avowedly did in Oregon, Washington, Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas, and many other states.  

Her disgraceful statement frames the meme in a darker light: Obama cannot be elected, because someone just won't let it happen.  Because the specter of Kennedy also raises the specter of November 1968, when the Democratic Party was trounced.  That's her subtext, whispered in the supers' ears: How can we risk another 1968, when I offer a lower-risk alternative?

Do you doubt me? On 60 Minutes, she had the following exchange with Steve Kroft:

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

A denial non-denial.  Nothing untrue.  She actually says "no" twice.  And yet, there's a nuance--especially on the video--that leaves a soupcon of suspicion where none exists.  Why not just say "no"?  It was ambiguous enough to Kroft, who felt compelled to ask the question twice.  It was clear enough to Howard Fineman, who called the performance "brilliantly Macchiavellian."

And that's what today's response was, except it wasn't brilliant.  It was a desperate gambit, and the desperation was patently obvious to anyone who isn't focusing all their powers of concentration on envisioning a scenario in which she wrests the nomination from Obama.  Those are the people who will call this diary a "desperate" attempt to smear Clinton.  The ones who will decry my "faux outrage."  The Larry Johnsons who seek to demean my response by calling it "wailing."  Funny, isn't it, that the same folks claiming a vast sexist conspiracy would attempt to effeminize responses like mine as "desperate wailing."

I'm reminded of Wormtongue, when he hisses, "You lie!"  And Gandalf responds that the words pass too easily from his lips.

I'm also reminded of something Daniel Patrick Moynahan once said about Gerald Ford.  He was talking about Ford's words and actions during the 1976 campaign, and he focused on the footage of Ford tripping as he descended from Air Force One.  "This is a man who had been a great college athlete, and he's tripping on the steps of the plane," Moynahan said with a chuckle.  He wouldn't elaborate, but the implication was clear: Ford had accepted the presidency and had accepted the duty of running for re-election.  But he didn't want to remain president for another four years.  Unable to say so directly, he subtly undercut his chances.  Viewed in this light, Ford's debate declaration that Eastern Europe wasn't dominated by the USSR makes more sense.  A disqualifying misstatement, made in apparent earnestness and obstinately defended.

Senator Clinton is a pro.  She understands better than almost anybody in the world the stage she's on now and its ability to magnify every word.  This was not an unfortunate analogy, plucked out of the air by a tired candidate.  This was a desperate gambit.

Still doubt me?  Let's watch and see who's desperate.  Which candidate will respond to this issue in a presidential manner, and which one will parse responses and offer shifting rationales?