I know I promised things would be more fluffy around here lately, but I'm sorry, this is really irking me.
In reference to Hillary Clinton's remarks suggesting that in 1968 the primaries went until June (which we all remember, because RFK was assassinated, but never you mind that)so it's ridiculous for her to drop out of the race at this point:
People have short memories these days, but fortunately they also have Wikipedia. Let's specifically note that in 1968, the primary season did not begin until the New Hampshire primary on March 12. In 2008, the season started with the Iowa caucus on January 3rd. So for the analogy to even be correct, RFK would have to have been assassinated in August.
Also, hello? 1968? Clinton is bringing up 1968 when trying to suggest that a prolonged primary battle isn't bad for the Democrats? The year that the Democratic convention was overshadowed by anti-war demonstrators getting beaten by police live on TV? When Hubert Humphrey, a vaguely racist, hawkish man whom I'm sure also appealed to "hard-working, white Americans", was beaten by Richard freaking Nixon?
In 1992, I believe the primaries did actually begin in January, just like in 2008. So why not just mention her husband's securing the nomination in June that year? Why bring up the RFK thing at all?
You know, I do think she should stay in the race if she so chooses. She's actually correct in what she says (which is the frustrating part), in that a prolonged primary fight isn't historically unprecedented or anything.
I just wish she didn't display a Bushlike fondness for utilizing proverbial memory holes. To overlook the assassination angle entirely, which is tough, didn't she think it was a bad idea to mention a year that was terrible for the Democrats? Didn't she think anyone would remember?