And chief among them is Slick Hillary Clinton.

If she had the guts to admit her obsessive campaign that began in January, 2001 has failed, she could bow out gracefully, endose Obama and (perhaps) have a legitimate chance to try again in 2012. You see, if she does that, she is is someone who withdrew for the sake of the party, not a failed candidate. That would mean she would be a legitimate contender in 2012, especially if Obama gets beaten in 2008 (which I see as being likely; there are too many good issues McCan can hammer him with).

But if, as seems probable, she fights it out to the bitter end and a defeat at the national convention, she will be tarred with the "failed candidate" brush. For the past fifty years, the attitude of the Democrats seems to be, "You get one shot at getting the top slot on the ticket. If you fight to the end and don't get picked, that's it. You're done as a contender. You've failed.

"And if you are picked for the top slot and then fail at the polls, you're done as a nominee, period." They learned from Adlai Stevenson being beaten three times at the polls, you see. Look at what happened to Al Gore and Hubert Humphrey. Lose the general election, and the best you can hope for is to hang onto a Senate seat.

If Slick Hillary had the political smarts her adoring Clintonistas claim she does, she'd know the smart move is to fold up the tent and concede the primaries to Obama. That way, win or lose she could lick her wounds, rebuild a war chest (assuming anyone will take her seriously after this year), try to establish some credibility by actually writing some meaningful, useful bills and pushing them through into law that have no connection with anything she or her scumbag husband did between 1992 and 2000, and try again when Obama is out of the picture, be that in 2012 or 2016. But she does not seem to be that smart. Or perhaps she just can't believe, to paraphrase Sally Field, that "... they really don't LIKE me! The People really don't LIKE me!"

thank you very much, Obama cult fascist. Next on our show, we have more childish and angry invective from those who purport to support the 'new kind of politics, reach across the aisels to pull us all together candidate' (chuckle chuckle). As if...

First, if she runs in 2012 or 2016, you and your ilk will not vote for her. (writing some meaningful bills? Give me a break. Do you even know what bills she has written. And do you expect her to believe that it is all that is keeping you from voting for her). There will be another Obama and it will be the same story repeated over again. She is not stupid enough to fall for this. The reason you are asking her to quit is not out of concern for her but because your candidate is gettied bloodied. In 2016, whoever is the VP will run and the establishement will rally around the VP - not Hillary. Check back - since when a VP has not been the nominee [Gore, Bush, Ford, LBJ...]

Second, she is not a fool. What she is demonstrating is that Obama cannot win by himself in November. The only ticket that has a good chance to win is herself and Obama. The supers know this - that is why they are not stepping in. But neither wants to be a VP - so the only feasible ticket is a shared Presidency. That is where she is trying to push the Supers to.

"... a shared presidency," lvlhead? Are the superdelegates planning to rewrite the Constitution, then? This is not high school, where you have co-captains of the football team or the cheeleading squad.

ONE person becomes president. ONE person becomes vice president. The responsibilities of both offices are clearly defined, and the president is the one who bears the ultimate responsibility. That's how it works in our government, period.

Besides, didn't we hear this same nonsense about a shred presidency back in 1992? And wasn't one of the two Democratic players this year involved in making that claim then? Funny thing, that....

Clinton hangs in there because she knows she has a shot at winning the nomination. She's very good at the kind of politics needed to get some defections among the super delegates. She's also very good at the kind of campaigning and media manipulation needed to make Obama seem too radical and too dangerous. She's also very good at the kind of horse trading and deal making needed to gain back some of the delegates now in limbo from the Michigan and Florida primaries, although Howard Dean does not seem to be caving in to her demands right now.

The problem, of course, comes in the general election, after Clinton "steals" the nomination. Democrats would be so factionalized and disorganized that McCain could easily defeat Clinton.