Your SAT Prep for the Day

1. If Obama 2008: RFK 1968, then Hillary 2008:
a) Humphrey 1968
b) Nixon 1968
c) Agnew 1968
d) Sirhan Sirhan 1968
e) Nader 2000

So which of those possible answers is most flattering to Hill? Hard to say. I'm guessing she'd say (a) but she'd be thinking (b). But she's making a pretty good case right now for the analogically impaired (e).

Having been gone (and beyond news contact) for M-Day, I missed all the weekend feeding frenzy fun. I had heard her remark before going underground (actually, mountaintop) for Appalachian Obama-fest '08, but it didn't really strike me as a big deal. I mean, sure, Hill fantasizes about Obama getting whacked, just like the folks at FOX News do, but this comment was pretty mild stuff, at least for her. You could plausibly read it in another way, although the Freudian view gains plausibility from the fact that the point itself was a non sequitur: who believes that she would need an ongoing and active campaign to secure the nomination in the event a worst case scenario? A suspended campaign would position her just as well--and maybe better, since she would have provoked less resentment along the way. Or maybe she was just saying that the Dems had a prolonged fight in 1968 and still came out on top? OOPS. GOP realignment for a generation! OK, so she was tired, late at night, just like in Snipergate. (Note to Terry McAuliffe: using 1980 and 1984 as positive examples of extended contests does not help your case.)

However, her pseudo-apology, coupled with the response of her campaign to this flap, is mind-boggling. She's trying to blame her gaffe on Obama? When his campaign decently (and prudently) stayed out of the way? Criminey! I guess she checked her dignity at the door a long time ago. And yet, somehow she always manages to outdo herself. Next week: Hill puts on blackface and sings Sir Mixalot.