RFK learned while working for Sen. McCarthy that you can get away from saying almost anything without meaning it.

Robert Kennedy was an idealist. He had courage of his convictions ( one can recognise a fake or a phony in spite of grand rhetoric ). He went to the reservations to see how people lived. He went to Appalachia to see the conditions under which people lived there. He said what he meant and meant what he said.
There was an excellent Op-Ed in New York Times which is worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/opinion/05kennedyintro.html
Skepticism--yes. Cynicism--no.

Seth,
Clearly SOMEBODY thought RFK meant it.

If you wanna know who represents a real threat to entrenched power, see who entrenched power attacks. Everything else is speculation.

Seth, repeat that more often. I was talking with a college prof/peace activist over the holiday weekend, and he refused to believe that RFK had worked for Joe McCarthy until I pulled it up on Google.

But I do believe in the power of transformation, and I think the Bobby who ripped the med students was a bit more evolved than the one who carried Tailgunner Joe's water.

The last president to do anything for poor people was LBJ. He grew up poor too. Unfortunately he inherited and escalated a horrible war which ruined his legacy. But as far as improving social conditions LBJ was probably our most progressive president, ever.

RFK was not attacked by entrenched power. Like his older brother he represented it.

I don't think it is good that either of them were killed, but it is a mistake to think that they were shot for standing up to entrenched authority. That is like saying, "Oh the government gave Roy Cohn AIDS to keep him from sparking a revolution."

We will never know what RFK could have achieved if he had not been killed and was elected president. However, are so called "entrenched power" and "fighting for social and economic justice" mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to use one's power to bring about change for the better and be an advocate for the "have nots"? We already have an example in our senate.

No need to put RFK on the analyst's couch. He said something I quoted. Question: which recent Dem has said such a thing and won the primary?

THE PARTY WILL NEED a chairman and a treasurer to be TOTALLY legal under US Law. Preferably 2 people who will never meet or do ANY business other than public (over the blogs). As always I'm voting for Michael Meyer.

@ Prof Chazelle
I think the answer to your question is Ned Lamont.

Seth,
The person or persons behind RFK's murder are not known. What IS known is this:
1) The official version of the murder is fundamentally implausible. The basic physical evidence (the number and direction of the shots) is not compatible with the LAPD's version.
2) When you exclude the LAPD's single-shooter theory, you are left with two options: two unrelated "lone nuts" converging on RFK at the same time (possible, but fantastically unlikely); or a coordinated conspiracy to murder RFK.
3) If this conspiracy was pulled off by anyone other than "entrenched power," it would have been revealed immediately; this is what law enforcement does. But the LAPD's actions, and the fact that essential information is increasingly available--but always fragmentary and sometimes tampered-with--suggests that evidence identifying a conspiracy was suppressed. "Entrenched power" is the only group capable of directing the investigation in '68-'69, and suppressing information afterwards.

RFK was not a saint, and perhaps the lesson his assassination should teach is to stop pinning our hopes for a better world on individuals. But he was also murdered under suspicious circumstances by persons unknown. This is an issue that extends well beyond Kennedy-worship, into our basic beliefs in justice and freedom. We cannot shrug it off and move on, as much as we'd all like to--assassination is the opposite of democracy; our political system cannot function under the shadow of political murder. Our only choice is to address it and nullify it, enabling authentic democracy, or pretend it doesn't happen here (or only happens occasionally, or doesn't REALLY matter, since they're all bums anyway) and continue the sham. We see what the sham brings.

"Entrenched power" is not monolithic; RFK was a part of, and clearly had the blessing of, one faction of "entrenched power." But he was considered a threat by another faction--for reasons known only to that faction. Unfortunately, the anti-RFK faction was more powerful.

Anyone interested in the latest information regarding the assassinations of the sixties--much of it utilizing scientific analysis not available in years past--is recommended to the site www.maryferrell.org. Responsible; thoughtful; troubling.

PREFERABLY a treasurer with good bookkeeping skills. I have none.