Did Hillary Clinton "cross a Line"?

"Clinton Crosses a Line" is the title of a recent column by Robert Novak in the Washington Post. Some excerpts.

When Hillary Clinton said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," she was not saying anything she had not publicly declared earlier. Yet those words sparked a political firestorm, raising among Democrats new levels of anti-Clinton sentiment and concern about Barack Obama's viability in the general election.

After Clinton cited the 1968 murder of Robert F. Kennedy as reason for remaining a candidate for the presidential nomination, I contacted many activist Democrats -- both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama. Without exception, they felt Clinton had crossed a line and inflicted a grievous wound on the party that will be difficult to heal. ...

Clinton's infamous comments to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader last Friday came when she was asked why she was still competing in the South Dakota primary June 3. In March, when Time magazine asked her whether remaining in the race would hurt the party, she replied: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A." According to campaign sources, that has been a commonplace observation made in private by Bill Clinton.

Poor taste by the Clintons is matched by their poor knowledge of history. Kennedy's campaign against Hubert Humphrey 40 years ago is not comparable to the Clinton-Obama marathon. When he was killed, Kennedy had been a candidate for only 2 1/2 months and Humphrey for two months. Contrary to the impression given by Sen. Clinton, Kennedy was not a presumptive nominee stopped by an assassin. Humphrey enjoyed a decisive lead in delegates that Kennedy surely would have been unable to erase. As for 1992, Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in April -- not June, as his wife's claim implied. (end of excerpts)

First, I must say how heartwarming it is to see Novak's concern for the current turmoil in the Democratic party.

As a way of analyzing this situation in my previous article, I posed the following question.
(I repeat some of what I wrote there for the reader's convenience.)

Why does a candidate decide to continue to campaign for the Democratic or Republican Presidential nomination when he or she has little or no chance of winning or has been all but "mathematically eliminated" (whatever that means)?

I then proceeded to give three rational answers, HUCK(as in Mike Huckabee), PAUL (as in Ron Paul), and

HRC: (as in Hillary Rodham Clinton) She's a close second, and her opponent may commit some gaffe or some "Summer Surprise" may occur that causes his popularity to crumble to the point where the super delegates will step in and help her gain the nomination. Or some contested delegates may be seated to her advantage.

One answer of dubious validity:

MEorMAC: ( MAC as in McCain) She has a cause that she wants to take perhaps all the way to the convention. To wit: She is electable and her opponent is not.

And one illogical answer:

RFK: (as in Robert F. Kennedy) The leading candidate may be assassinated or otherwise "taken out", and she needs to be there to step in as his replacement.

To continue, the reason that Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were in the race to stay in 1968 was their opposition to the Vietnam War, which was certainly a valid reason. I don't agree with Novak's assertion that Kennedy could not have won the nomination had he lived..

In 1972, which more resembles this campaign year than does any other, the motivation for candidates other than McGovern for staying in the race and trying to change the rules about California's "Winner-take-all" Primary after it had occurred (sound familiar?) was a variation on "MEorMAC":

NoMAC. (MAC as in George McGovern) That the probable nominee could not defeat the incumbent president, who was running for re-election.

In 1980, Teddy Kennedy's rationale for staying in the race was quite straightforward. "No more Jimmy Carter."

So, although giving "RFK" as one answer was illogical on Hillary's part, she is entitled to stay in the race for as long as she wants. However, "HRC" seems to be fading as a viable reason, leaving her with only "MEorMAC".

As for her bringing up Bobby Kennedy's assassination at all, what is truly tasteless is how she trivialized the national trauma that it was by adding it to her "laundry list" of reasons for staying in. As if being assassinated was on the same level as running out of money, losing some key supporters or having to deal with too many "bimbo eruptions."

Come to think of it though, since my formulation of "RFK" was flawed (Kennedy was in fact trailing Humphrey at the time), and since Hillary is now trailing Obama, perhaps this is a reason for her to consider dropping out of the race, rather than staying in.