The drumbeat continues:

If Sen. Barack Obama needs a mere 170 more delegate votes to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination outright, he just got one vote closer.

That's because Laurie Weahkee, New Mexico's newest -- and most coveted -- superdelegate, just threw her support behind Obama.

"After the primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, it is now absolutely clear that Barack Obama will be our nominee," Weahkee, lead organizer for the Native American Voters Alliance, writes in a statement e-mailed to the Independent. She adds, "Obama has proven that he can campaign in a difficult environment and still inspire thousands of new voices to take part in the democratic process."

Weahkee also had good things to say about Hillary Clinton -- "I’d like to recognize Senator Clinton for her many years of service to this country, and for laying the groundwork for women across this country to run for office" -- but in the end that wasn't enough to push the long-time New Mexico activist into her corner.

Add this to the flip of Rep. Donald Payne from Clinton to Obama, South Carolina's Democratic vice-chair Wilber Lee Jeffcoat, California DNC members Ed Espinoza and Vernon Watkins, Oregon representative Pete DeFazio, and American Federation of Government Employees president John Gage of Maryland (and his union), and that's a net gain of eight superdelegates. Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) endorsed Clinton today, so the overall net gain of superdelegates today is seven. To put this in perspective, a huge win for Clinton (60% or above) in West Virginia would probably give her a 19-9 delegate split. That's almost wiped out by today's endorsements alone.

Meanwhile, John Edwards let it slip that he voted for Obama in the North Carolina primary, and Rahm Emanuel said that Obama is the presumptive nominee.

Update [2008-5-9 15:59:34 by BooMan]: The net gain is back to eight with the endorsement of Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI).

The death-rattle continues.

What people say on the opinion pages of our nations's most prestigious newspapers has little to no effect on the outcome of elections. This is something that Republicans understand and Democrats often forget. It doesn't really matter what Gail Collins or Fred Hiatt think, nor does it matter much what George Will or Bob Herbert think...not for elections, anyway. But it does matter what elite opinion thinks for how history is written and for how our nation's political meta-narratives get disseminated down and out into the larger political conversations. And that does have an affect on how elections turn out and on people's permanent legacy.

George W. Bush has been a bad president, but even if he had not, his legacy would still be sullied by the nasty campaign he ran against John McCain in South Carolina. Likewise, the Clintons are now almost certainly going to lose any battle to exonerate themselves in the history books of running one of the nastiest race-based campaigns in recent memory.

All you have to do is look at the papers to see that a consensus is forming among the opinion makers.

Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post:

As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America...

These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.

New York Times Editorial Board:

...we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones...

...We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.

Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal:

The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender...

...To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board:

With the electoral math against her, Clinton is left with just two arguments for her viability, neither of them good. The first is that delegates from Florida and Michigan should be counted. They should not. Those states violated party rules by moving up their primaries, and the candidates agreed not to contest them. To seat those delegates would clearly change the rules in mid-game. Her second appeal is to the party's superdelegates, urging them to overrule the will of voters and to back her instead. On that point, we agree that superdelegates should vote their conscience, but to do so in such a way as to deny the nomination of the first serious African American candidate in history on behalf of one who has shown no greater appeal to voters would be politically dangerous folly.

Stripped of those two bad arguments, Clinton has none left to make. She has run a fine race, but she has lost.

I don't even think it is possible to change this narrative once it sets in. History will record it this way, and there's not much the Clinton's can do about it now. It's incredibly sad.

Hate is a very destructive emotion. Just ask any person with high blood pressure, or ulcers because their rage gets the better of them. Or ask the victims of hate. All those black men who were lynched in the early twentieth century. All the European Jews who were burned to cinders in the Holocaust. All the victims of all the wars ever fought. Hatred is not a sound foundation for anyone to build their identities upon, or fashion their political careers around, or make the center point of their everyday existence. Sooner or later it brings destruction and devastation to all in its path, both haters and hated alike. For a historical example, just look at Nazi Germany. Or, for a more current one, look at our country today, brought to its knees, economically, militarily, spiritually and morally by the constant hate fed to our body politic by the Republicans and their right wing allies over the last 30 years.

For some time now, I've witnessed an unparalleled explosion of hatred within the Democratic party. This presidential primary campaign has been one in which Democrats of all stripes have engaged in the rawest displays of anger and venom toward one candidate or another. Hate that has been fostered and manipulated primarily by the campaign of one candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. A campaign which demonized Barack Obama as incompetent, corrupt, an elitist, and out of touch with white working class voters. And even worse, one which demonized and demeaned the supporters of Senator Obama and those who voted for him. Obama supporters have been marginalized by the Clintons as effete liberal professionals, left wing semi-Marxist political activists, small state voters who didn't count as much as large state voters, and, as repugnant as this is to type, as "Jesse Jackson" type African Americans, inconsequential and unimportant. People who didn't really matter. People who could not form the basis for a Democratic victory against John McCain in the Fall. People who weren't "real Americans." People whose issues and desires were of little if any consequence.

(cont.)

Dear Jeralyn, Armando (Big Tent Democrat), Jerome Armstrong, Taylor Marsh, etc.:

I'm confused about something. You all keep saying that it is vitally important that we count every vote before determining who the nominee should be. It's a fine principle, and one that is familiar to all Democrats from the last two presidential elections. So, if we agree to count all the votes from Michigan and Florida and to seat all the delegates based on those votes, and Hillary Clinton is still behind in the pledged delegates (as she would inevitably be), it is my understanding that you then expect the superdelegates to vote overwhelmingly in the opposite direction, thereby not only countering, but reversing the will of the voters.

This strikes me as akin to George W. Bush joining Al Gore in insisting that every vote be counted in Florida, and then once the Electoral College flips to Gore, having the Supreme Court overrule the Electoral College and hand the presidency to George W. Bush anyway. Is there some sense in which I have this comparison wrong?

I know the superdelegates have the right to do this in a way that the Supreme Court probably did not. But it's not the right I am talking about, but the principle. We all know that Al Gore didn't deserve the presidency because he won the popular vote. If that were how presidential contests were decided, George W. Bush never would have campaigned in Delaware or any other vote-poor state. He would have stuck to campaigning in vote-rich states like California, hoping to limit Gore's gains there.

It's true that the superdelegates basically only exist to overturn the will of the people if they feel that is absolutely necessary. They really serve no other purpose, and that is what you are arguing they should do. But where I'm having trouble computing your argument is where you say that it is a violation of some sacred principle to deny the people of Florida and Michigan their votes, but not a violation of any sacred principle to overturn the will of all the people that have participated in the nominating process.

You might argue that there is a scenario where Clinton might be able to claim that she won the most votes if Florida and Michigan are counted in the most favorable way for Clinton. It's a big if, but it could happen. But you have already signed on for another principle...that the superdelegates have absolute discretion to vote for whomever they want, regardless of the popular vote. So, you're hardly arguing that the popular vote is sacrosanct.

It seems to me like you are just fighting for Clinton, and that is the only principle that you applying. If it helps her, you advocate it, and if it hurts her, you bemoan it. You're not really arguing that the winner of the popular vote should automatically be crowned the victor. You are arguing the opposite in the case of the pledged delegates. So, what difference does it really make whether Florida and Michigan are counted?

Obviously, a failure to allow their delegates to participate in the convention might make it harder for the Democrats to compete in those states in the general election. But you don't recognize the will of the overall electorate as decisive, so why do you care whether Florida or Michigan are seated this way or that...so long as they are seated?

Let me finish with just one more point. Since you are arguing that the superdelegates should overwhelmingly reject the will of the people, as expressed under the rules by the pledged delegates, don't you recognize that the superdelegates already know the results (and the circumstances that led to the results) in Michigan and Florida? Is it really necessary for those results to be official for the superdelegates to disregard the overall results?

At bottom, you are only angling for numbers. You know that counting Florida and Michigan makes it possible for Clinton to win with less superdelegates choosing to disregard the will of the people.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but you really aren't operating according to any principle at all.

Sincerely,

BooMan

My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton's comments about how she is the only candidate that can win white hard-working American votes is that it sends out the message that Barack Obama is someone on the other side, that he doesn't have white working people's interests at heart, that he's an out of touch elitist, who looks down on common folk. At root, this is what every Republican presidential candidate says about about every Democratic candidate, no matter whether they are the son of Greek immigrants, an American war hero, or raised by a single mother in Hope, Arkansas. But when you add in the racial component and you have a Democrat saying it, it triples the toxicity.

Here's the deal. When Democrats don't call out Bill and Hillary Clinton on these kind of race-based smear tactics, it legitimizes their use by the Republicans. I don't know how many times we are going to hear the Republicans this fall use some variation of: "That's not racist, even Hillary Clinton said..."

You know, that she wouldn't have gone to that church, or that Obama's out of touch, or an elitist, or hangs out with terrorist professors, and was educated in a secular madrassa, or was doing who knows what (dealing drugs) back in the day.

I don't know if the Clintons are ever going to resign themselves to defeat and ask their supporters to put aside hurt feelings and help get Obama elected. But even if they do, the Republicans will be able to drive a wedge between Clinton and Obama anytime they get put on the defensive for saying or doing something over the line.

I believe that is why it is so vitally important that the superdelegates send an unmistakable message, right now, that no more of this white/black elitist crap is going to be tolerated and that it is specifically the Clintons' tone and tactics that are leading them to shut this campaign down.

It may be the case that Barack Obama doesn't have much chance of winning in Kentucky or West Virginia either this month or in November. But it is unconscionable for the Clintons to exploit lingering race-hatred in Appalachia for their own cynical political advantage...especially this late in the game after the contest has been decided.

This is the exact kind of sleeze that got me involved in politics in the first place. Seeing Atwater and Rove do this stuff is what made me an implacable Democrat rather than some kind of third-party supporter. There is absolutely no place for racial politics in the Democratic Party, and even less reason to indulge it out of some misplaced loyalty or self-serving fear.

McCain's adviser sends a memo.

From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor

Date: May 8, 2008

Re: Senator Obama’s Attack Today

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today: He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue — from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks.

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for ‘de-tox’ to cure ’swooning’ over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.

Today, Senator Obama is complaining about comments John McCain made about a senior Hamas advisor stating that Hamas would welcome Senator Obama’s election as president. Indeed, on April 13th, senior Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, ‘We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.’

The McCain campaign has never suggested that Senator Obama supports Hamas’ agenda, but it is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment.

Just today, the president of Iran, whom Senator Obama wants to meet with unconditionally, called the state of Israel a ’stinking corpse.’ Iran is the paymaster and state sponsor of Hamas.

In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that ‘wisdom’ is meeting with our enemies, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro. John McCain couldn’t disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty.

We understand why Senator Obama doesn’t want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place.

These are serious times that call for a serious debate on the profound issues facing our future. John McCain is ready for that debate and we hope Senator Obama will one day get serious and join it.

Are you ready for this fight?

Joe Klein is a piece of work. Does he realize that by allowing us to peer into the inner sanctum of his bifurcated reasoning process he is admitting to every sin he, and his generation of pundits, have been accused of committing?

If he wants a solution to the media problem, he should take his scintilla of self-awareness and apply some leadership by example. Abstinence starts with a strict no-wanking policy.

While we are all drumming our fingers waiting for the superdelegates to drop the final bomb on Clinton's candidacy, we might as well engage in some idle speculation. So, anyone have any opinions on running mates, the size of Senate or House wins in November, or where either of the Clinton's careers go from here?

Update [2008-5-8 16:8:1 by BooMan]: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) has endorsed Obama.

Update [2008-5-8 18:40:33 by BooMan]: Rep. Rick Larson (D-WA) has endorsed Obama.

Many of you know that the area of election fraud and election integrity is a huge one for me. And while I am not going to link to each of the 20 or so posts I have done over the past 2 years, they are easy to find in the link above.

So with that, thereisnospoon and I am honored to be interviewing noted author and election fraud expert Mark Crispin Miller today at 4PM Eastern on BlogTalkRadio.

Mark is the author of Fooled Again and has a new book hot off the presses called Loser Take All - both of which are chock full of information related to the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 (yes, 2006) elections and how races were stolen in each of these elections (and yes, I am using the word stolen as well).

I won’t rehash everything that I have written about here, but you can be sure that we will be touching on the following topics:

• The “gaming of the system from the inside”
• The DOJ Voting Rights Section politicization
• The voter ID anti-voter laws being passed
• Election day vote suppression tactics
Uncertified and unreliable voting machines being approved for use without proper review
• Lawsuits filed by the DOJ in the name of “vote fairness” that were really mass suppression tactics
• The US Attorney scandal and how this ties in
• How exit polls were “suddenly” unreliable beginning in 2000 after being reliable for many years (and in many countries)
• Looking forward and how to fix the process

I am sure we will hit on other topics, but this is something that I have been waiting for and certainly a show that will be well worth listening to (and will be much fun to tape).

Once again, the link to the show is here. There will also be a chat room, so if you want to give your two (or three) cents, please don’t hesitate.

This is what victory looks like:

Obama, increasingly looking like the Democratic presidential nominee, strode into the House chamber just before 11 a.m. as the House was beginning a series of votes. Obama, who was greeted with hugs and backslaps, slipped in the side door along with what appeared to be only his security detail.

“I wanted to see what's going on over here,” Obama, wearing a broad smile, told reporters. “I hear there's a lot of action on this side.”

He spoke to uncommitted superdelegates as well as supporters of his rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) He was also seen speaking to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is neutral in the race. And he talked at length to Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), an uncommitted superdelegate.

The Democratic frontrunner spoke with Clinton supporters Reps. John Murtha (Pa.) and Bill Pascrell (N.J.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and John Spratt (S.C.), who are both uncommitted.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), a Clinton supporter, got Obama to sign a copy of today’s New York Daily News with the headline: “It’s His Party.”

He also talked with Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter whose district voted for Obama. But those votes have not been counted in the Democratic primary because Florida defied the party rules in scheduling its primary.

“I was teasing, as everyone was. I said, ‘Do you want me to kiss the ring now, or when you come to Florida,’” Hastings said. “He said, ‘Take your time.’ I said, ‘I will take my time, because you do need to come to Florida,’” Hastings related later. "I didn't get to say what I wanted to say, which is that he could just say right now, ‘Seat the Florida delegation.’”

Even Republicans were not immune. Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) brought his children over to say hello. Obama also spoke with Republican Reps. David Dreier (Calif.) and Jerry Lewis (Calif.). Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) came running after him, and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.) came over to chat.

He spent about 40 minutes speaking to lawmakers. After he exited the floor, Obama said the goal is to “bring the party together as soon as possible.”

He also told reporters also told reporters that he expects to lose the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky to Clinton.

I'm just waiting for a big announcement about a big bloc of superdelegates that will finish off the last delusional hope that the math can work for Hillary Clinton. And then I don't want to hear from Bill and Hill again. They can go hang out with Ed Koch and nurse their bitterness.

I said it early and I said it loud, but I never said it better than dNa. Even I never expected the Clintons to disgrace themselves to this degree and to devour their own legacy. It was bad enough to run a deliberately racially polarizing campaign. To actually finish on an explicitly racist note? How sad.

Crude oil prices

NEW YORK (AFP) — World oil prices surged to fresh record highs above 123 dollars per barrel Wednesday amid concerns about tight supplies and lingering unrest in oil-rich Nigeria, traders said.

Food prices

Collins cited World Bank statistics that global food prices have increased by 83 percent in the past three years. In the U.S., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission reports, a sampling of April 2008 prices shows the following one-year increases:

  *
   Wheat, up 95 percent.
  *
   Soybeans, up 83 percent.
  *
   Corn, up 66 percent.
  *
   Oats, up 47 percent.

Bankruptcies

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Business bankruptcy filings in the U.S. increased 49 percent in April from a year earlier, the biggest gain so far in 2008, as the slowing economy prompted more companies to shut down.

Foreclosures

Foreclosure filings rose 57 percent in March from a year earlier, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc.

"Conditions in mortgage markets remain quite difficult, and mortgage delinquencies have climbed steeply," [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke said.

So what is John McCain's solution for our economic quagmire, brought on by 8 years of Republican rule bitter partisan fighting by Democrats (and only Democrats) in Congress? It's so simple I'm surprised you haven't thought of it already (then again, maybe you have).

MORE TAX CUTS!

(cont.)

Just so you know, there are 217 pledged delegates left to win in the Democratic nominating process. Let me use the somewhat imprecise Slate Delegate Calculator to give you and idea of how those delegates might break. Clinton has a 55-27 edge in Pollster.com's poll of polls for West Virginia. Let's round that up to a nice 64-36 outcome: Clinton 18-10, +8 pledged delegates. Clinton has a 62-28 advantage in Kentucky. Let's round that up to a 67-33 outcome: Clinton 34-17, +17 Delegates. Recent polls in Oregon give Obama a lead of about 51-42. Let's round that up to a 55-45 outcome: Obama 29-23, Obama +6. There's one ancient poll from March that has Clinton winning Puerto Rico 50-37. Let's round it up to 57-43: Clinton 31-24, Clinton +7. There's another ancient poll from South Dakota that has Obama up 46-34. Let's round it up to 56-44: Obama 8-7, Obama +1. There are no polls for Montana, so let's just use the same 56-44 number that we used for South Dakota: Obama 9-7, Obama +2. Now let's put it in an eye-popping chart.

5/13 West Virginia- Clinton +8
5/20 Kentucky- Clinton +17 (cumulative: Clinton +25)
5/20 Oregon- Obama +6 (cumulative: Clinton +19)
6/01 Puerto Rico- Clinton +7 (cumulative: Clinton +26)
6/03 South Dakota- Obama +1 (cumulative: Clinton +25)
6/03 Montana- Obama +2 (cumulative: Clinton +23)

Total of remaining delegates: Clinton 120, Obama 97
Total pledged delegates: Obama 1685, Clinton 1542 (net: Obama +143)

Now, I want you to look at what the Clinton campaign is spinning out today in the Washington Post:

Clinton advisers sketched out a scenario that they said could still deliver the nomination, though they acknowledged privately that the odds are long. It includes winning three of the final six primaries -- West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico -- and holding down Obama's margin in Oregon or even winning the state. Obama is favored in Montana and South Dakota.

In the above scenario, I gave Clinton huge blowout wins in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. (If she were actually to win Oregon she might improve her situation, but the delegate count won't change much). And, even granting this very favorable scenario, she only nets 23 delegates and loses the overall pledged delegate count by 143 votes. The Clintons know this, which is why there is more to her plan.

Next, Clinton still hopes to win the battle over seating disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan with full voting rights. Keeping alive this fight, at a minimum, gives the Clinton team the opportunity to argue that Obama will need more than 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee plans to meet May 31 to take up the two states' challenges.

If all the Florida and Michigan delegates were seated and voting, the winning number would be 2,209. Clinton's campaign wants superdelegates to accept its logic that Obama is further from the magic number than his campaign says.

Before I go on here, I want to point out that Obama's projected 1685 pledged delegates added to his 260 committed superdelegates equals 1945 total delegates. That is mere 81 short of a majority of 2025.5. There are approximately 287 outstanding uncommitted superdelegates, so Obama only needs 30% of them to win a majority. Even if Clinton wins 200 out of the 287 remaining supers, she still loses by one vote.

But what if we add in Michigan and Florida, exactly the way that Clinton wants to add them: with full voting rights and, say, Obama getting the uncommitted vote in Michigan?

In that case:

Michigan:
Clinton 77
Obama 53
Clinton +24

Florida:
Clinton 105
Obama 67
Edwards 13
Clinton +38

Total:
Clinton 182
Obama 110
Clinton +72

In this new scenario, Obama would finish with 2055 delegates to Clinton's 1995 delegates. With 287 remaining superdelegates, Obama would need 154 (45%) and Clinton would need 214 (55%)to gain the nomination.

Mind you, Clinton would only get these odds if she wins West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico in blowouts and she gets Florida and Michigan seated with no penalty, and she doesn't lose any more net superdelegates between now and then. And even in this very rosy scenario, she'd still face the challenge of getting 55% of the supers to give her their endorsement. And that would be in spite of losing the pledged delegate count by 71 votes and losing 32 states and, quite likely, losing the popular vote. Although if Clinton wins the remaining contests by these margins (worth an approximate net of about 280,000 votes) and you give Clinton all her votes for Florida (net +295,000) and Michigan (net +328,000) and you deny Obama any votes from Michigan, she might just squeeze out a popular vote win of about 100,000 votes.

So, when Hillary Clinton talks about carrying on her campaign, these are the odds she is facing. And the superdelegates need to decide whether indulging Clinton's indisputable right to continue her campaign is worth it. How will getting blown out in demographically unfriendly states strengthen Obama? How will it help him to have to spend time, money, and energy fighting for votes in Puerto Rico, and among Democrats, generally?

Finally, Clinton needs to prevent Obama from winning endorsements from a substantial number of uncommitted superdelegates before the primaries end. "If enough move, that's it," one Clinton adviser said.

Do you hear that? "If enough [superdelegates] move, that's it." She has no way of winning, but she can't even continue unless the superdelegates are willing to trade all the lost opportunity and potential damage of further campaigning (which does indecisively favor Clinton) for an effort not to offend the Clintons. Why indulge them? On balance, what is to be gained?