As an Obama voter (migrated from Edwards),I see no reason why she should drop out as long as she has even a slim chance. And I don't buy this stuff about how she's tearing down Obama and hurting the party. Her attacks are just lite versions of the pasting he (or she, for that matter) can expect in the fall, and the idea that her advisers are thinking of any material the GOP slime machine wouldn't come up with on its own is frankly ludicrous. If Obama can't come up with ways to effectively parry her attacks, he'd be toast in the fall in any case. Anyway, look how well having an early presumptive nominee worked for us in 2004.

The race keeps Dems in the news and forces the candidates to build ground organizations in state after state that could be very valuable resources in November. It's not all bad by any means.

After tonight, if HRC wins both TX and OH, at best Hillary's delegate gain will be minimal. Small margins of victory tonight wont change the reality of her situation.
Like Mitt Romney, she cant catch up, and like Mitt, i think she will look at the reality of her situation and drop out, if not this week, sometime before the Pennsylvania primary.

Get out! You have no chance of catching up!!! You are destroying our chance in Novemeber with this nonsense.

Superdelegates will not put you over the top, Hillary. You are done.

If this goes on, and I think it will, Obama is going to go hard negative too just like the Hillary camp has and John McCain is going to be laughing it up. Why does he have to worry about his mini fundraising efforts when you have two heavyweights destroying each other? I used to like Hillary but after the past few weeks I am holding on by a thread. This is what she does I think, plays politics and manages to squeak out wins while making her opponents despise her. Well now her opponents are Democrats and she is at risk of rendering the party. I remember the first debate Hillary and Obama had after John Edwards dropped out. I was so polite and serious, I was very proud of the Democratic party. Not today. I have just a thread left now...

This Dem says please let us come together now! Let this not drag on any further.

Headline should say "Would" not "Should" stay in the race. I think anyone following the primaries realizes that HRC wants that nomination badly, and this has resulted in the Kitchen Sink negative campaign to try to recapture momentum. I think it would take a decisive loss in both TX and OH for her to concede that the numbers are just too much against her. So of course she Would (Will) choose to stay in.

Whether she 'Should' is a topic for debate, of course.

This reflects the media's desire to drag this out
and their pore job of informing the voters. The public isn't aware of the delegate math. Adn the election won't be won by Penn and Ickes spinning this creatively. It doesn't look like she will win enough today to catch up, and she may actualy lose some delegates.

Dragging his out only helps McCain. he rank and file might not see the trainwreck coming, but the party insiders surely do. That is why Clinton friend Richardson said we should wrap this up tomorrow and support whoever is ahead at that point.

One more thing:

You can't lose your way to the White House.

She can stay in if she wants. It just won't get her the nomination, and will only hurt the party.

the idea that her advisers are thinking of any material the GOP slime machine wouldn't come up with on its own is frankly ludicrous.

To say that she's not doing anything the GOP slime machine wouldn't also do isn't much of a defense!

"If this goes on, and I think it will, Obama is going to go hard negative"

And if he does he will be spending the good will of all those young people clamoring for something different. I think Obama should get back on message, and defend himself against attacks (as he has done so well to date) without going on the offensive (which I belive has hurt him in Texas and Ohio). It's the only way to ward off the evil spirits.

Those of us who have supported Obama prefer reasoned arguments to negative soundbites. It was a winning strategy and I think it's still viable.

Anyone notice the big swing toward Hillary in the InTrade numbers this morning? Obama has dropped 9 points from yesterday. Clearly the new poll numbers are giving Hillary supporters some hope, but I can't see a way for her to win, short of making a pledge now that should she be nominated she will pick Obama as her VP, and then campaigning like she is the presumptive frontrunner and Obama is her presumptive VP. And that would mean ending these Rovian attacks against Obama and directing them at McCain.

Hillary's McCain endorsement shows it's now a declared war in the Democratic party. It's going to be "take no prisoners" from here to the end regardless of how today goes. Hillary is in it to the bitter end, and she is guaranteeing that it will be bitter. I hope it's not true, but the trend now is a growing mutual hatred that will destroy the party.

"the onus may be on the Obama camp"

Oh, and why would that be, Greg? Because it's his job - and his job alone - to inform every no-information voter out there? You wouldn't have any responsibility in that regard, would you?

What's the threshold here, in terms of Hillary's messaging? I'm curious. When, if ever, does it become anathema to what the Democratic party stands for?

The article also shows how poorly the delegate count is being covered. Realistically, there is no difference in delegates between a two point win for Clinton in Ohio and Texas and a two point Obama win in those states. The Clinton camp have done a great job playing the expectations game and making a narrow win seem meaningful.

I think Governor Richardson is right. The person who trails in pledged delegates tomorrow should concede.

If Clinton's negative campaigning works in Texas and Ohio, and she ekes out victories, then Obama will be forced to do so in kind. We will have a democratic blood bath.

Hillary needed to win TX and OH in double digits. That is not going to happen. She will blunt Obama's momentum, but she will not make a depreciable difference in the delegate count. The math simply doesn't add up.

Meanwhile, the republican's will have selected their nominee, and they will begin making their case to the American people. Moreover, McCain will start framing both Obama and Clinton as inexperienced light weights.

The simple truth is, there is no good reason to drag this process out into late April. Hillary will not have the math on her side, and the campaigning will get increasingly negative turning voters in the middle off.

I'm guessing on Wed. the Obama campaign will announce they have raised $60 million in Feb., money that will be used to help us all remember what Whitewater was about, Hillary's famous billing sheets, all about Hillary and Bill's lucrative relationships with the corporate world and lobbyists, the skeletons in the Clinton closet, and much much more. When the Clintons began endorsing the Republican nominee over Obama, when they began darkening the skin of Obama in their Ads, when they do the drum beat about the Muslim Louis Farakhan Black connection, when they start coordinating attacks with the Conservative party of Canada, haven't we come to an all-out internecine war? The Dem. voters will get more than they bargained for in a protracted struggle.

I wonder how many Democrats heard her say this from Austin last night about the Iraq invasion?

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

That's how she views what has happened in Iraq under force of American arms? "The gift of freedom"? And just how does that differ from the GOP position?

The only way Sen. Clinton can win this is by continuing to go negative all the way to the convention.

If she somehow manages to win the nomination, yes, I'll probably vote for her but she's not going to get a cent of my money or a second of my volunteering time.

On the other hand I'll gladly contribute the maximum to Obama. He should be rewarded for running a clean positive primary campaign.

I would think that 'a majority of democrats' carry about as much weight as 'a majority of the delegates'. Remember, many of those delegates are based on red states where the dems have no chance to win and on crossover rethugs votes in caucus states and other states where crossover was permitted (it's not clear to me that Obama is the party's choice). In any case, Clinton, or Obama, should stay in as backup should the other implode as an implosion without backup would leave the party without a viable candidate. In the final analysis, ythis isn't about Clinton or Obama, it is about the dems winning the presidency in Nov.

Even if they're certain Obama will be the nominee, a beat up and bloodied Obama is in the Clintons' best interest. In November, she can start rolling our her "I told you so" campaign for the 2012 nomination.

Yes Ben they will probably call for Obama to drop out which underscores even more how the press has failed to communicate that Obama has lead with the pledged delegates every since IA. Clinton has never lead with pledged delegates. Despite, the claims of the press giving Obama a free pass. When you look at the coverage critically, it is Hillary who has had the free pass.

The press continues not to cover how he has come from behind by almost 20 points in every state to win. They are not covering how organized his campaign is nor how he had a 50 state strategy whereas Clinton did not.

If Clinton supporters want to make the case that Obama cannot close the deal, I think that applies far more aptly to Hillary.

After all, it is she who has the 'lifetime of experience' who was the 'inevitable' candidate and in command of whas was inarguably the best politic machine with the most money for day one. So, indisputably it is Hillary who has been the candidate who cannot close the deal.

In fact what we are seeing is that she peaked in the polls from the very start and the polls showed that from out of the gate she had very high negatives and even within the Democratic party she could not muster a majority of votes.

Hence this race is going on and on. She simply can't close the deal as a significant part of the party base do not want her as the nominee.

That is why we are going to have a floor fight at the convention. We are watching a sea change in the party being played out in the primaries. It is the old vs. the new and a changing of the guard.

Bill and Hill can't close the deal because Dems are ready to turn the page.

The superdelegates are as well and they need to line up behind Barack, tomorrow morning and change the focus of this story as to her not being able to win the delegates needed for the nomination.

America wants change and they do not mean a change of genitals in the pantswearer in the WH.

She should stay in until the end. Obama is just now getting examined and he has stumbled horribly so far. Rezko is a huge thorn in his side. He has lied about it, and sidestepped many questions in that regard. Dems would be foolish to put this person who has yet to be vetted up against Mccain. By the way, more Hillary supporters will vote for Mccain if Obama is the nominee, than Obama supporters. I as a Hillary supporter want experience and know how in the white house. Mccain is a moderate consevative and I am more of a moderate democrat. Obama is too liberal and inexperienced.

I've thought Hillary should drop out since the day I learned she was in it. Of course, they never asked me...

Many Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. Experience is the key. Obama has two years experience in the US senate and that is it. There is a poll out that says 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for Mccain while 10% of Obama supporters will support Mccain. Also, Obama will not win Georgia, SC, ND, UT, AK, Al, etc. Those red states will vote for Mccain. If the democratic nominee, can't win democratic strongholds Like NY, NJ, and CA, how can he win red states that always vote republican? He is not even winning the base of his own party. Mccain has huge crossover appeal. A lot of independents and moderate dems will vote for Mccain.

What to make of Brokaw saying a top Obama official told him 50 supers are ready to endorse him? How does this play in the media? Does it, along with huge fundraising numbers shift the narrative back in his direction? I hope that in addition to going after Hillary on her weaknesses (be like Rove and attack her on national security), the Obama campaign comes out with full, solid explanations for Rezko. He needs a Billary 60 Minutes type moment, where he admits he screwed up and asks for forgiveness. He needs to find a way to get beyond this or it will fuel Clinton charges he won't last in the general.

Yep. That's just one of the reasons I am no longer a rank & file dem - haven't given money to the party since 2003, only individual progressive candidates. Heck, Joe Lieberman is a dem. And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee it will be the first Presidential election I haven't voted for any candidate since Dukakis in 1988. I'll probably write-in Al Gore.

If experience is the key, then why would Hillary supporters not support McCain in the general, even if Hillary gets the nomination? His experience vastly outweighs her 8 years as First Lady and 6 in the US Senate.

Do Democrats get off on losing or what? For the first time in ages we are actually in a position to win and win big, and we still have half of our party being complete morons by supporting the biggest threat to our party: Hillary Clinton. And this isn't even a secret, Rush Limbaugh is telling conservatives in Texas to go vote for Hillary to keep her in the race so she can keep stabbing us all in the back! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27938741

The only reason Obama is getting bloodied and battered is because HIS OWN ACTIONS are surfacing.

Obama's own advisor told the Canadians not to worry about NAFTA. Your argument basically amounts to "the Canadians are screwing us by telling Americans about our secret meeting that we tried to deny." Obama's relationship with Rezko, and his "boneheaded" (his own word) house purchase deal are not something Hillary did to him. And Hillary didn't hold him down and keep him from having a single hearing while he was a subcommittee chairman.

This is not some scorched earth campaign by Hillary. It is just Obama's own record haunting him.

Obama has just over a 100 delegate lead. You can argue about pledged vs. super, uncommitted vs. other-candidate delegates, and it all degrades into silliness. They need just over 2000 delegates to clinch the nomination and neither one will get that from pledged delegates alone. The difference between them right now is just a small fraction of the total number of delegates.

You might argue that the superdelegates should look only at the popular vote. But most rational folks will say that Obamas lead came primarily from pushing heavy turnout in smaller, open primaries and caucuses, in most cases with only tens of thousands of voters. If he can't win in Texas or Ohio (with millions of voters), his only larger election victories are Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. His gaming of the system by relying on caucuses, pulling off the ballot in Michigan (before the DNC had rendered a final decision there) in order to avoid a "loss" and to help him in the early states, and his reliance on "delegate math" as the argument for his viability will all be very off-putting.

If Hillary goes to the convention with solid momentum, wins in almost all of the big states and in many regions of the country, continued broad support, continued clear advantage in key states over McCain (yes, Obama has the advantage in a few of them, too), and with the growing idea that we know her skeletons and we are just learning about Obama's, then the party will not give him the nomination. Without even having shenanigans, the convention can seat Florida and Michigan (they could even enforce the rules on campaigning and penalize Obama for his press conference in Florida during the blackout), the undecideds and Edwards delegates can turn to Hillary, the superdelegates can (and will) follow the pack to the winner.

This is not a "all of these stars must align" situation. This is a "any of these things can turn the balance to her, and many of them are likely" situation.

That is not to say she has it clinched. She doesn't, and neither does he. There are millions of folks still to vote as I write this, not just today but for the next few months. There is a process here, and there is no reason to stop it just because Obama supporters are afraid their shiny new candidate will get scratched.

Hillary supporters generally think that this contest has been good for her and has helped temper her campaign. The same is probably true of Obama's campaign, though his supporters seem genuinely afraid of seeing him face any opposition. If you think the stuff that Obama ginned up cries of racism over were bad, wait until you see the real racist stuff that the republicans do. If you think just hearing about Rezko is bad, wait until the republicans come along and tie him and Barack to everything back to the Chicago fire.

The point is, this ain't over. There is no miracle necessary for Hillary to take this. Nobody is saying that Hillary has it clinched by any measure, even if she wins big today. But pretending that Obama has it clinched is just fantasy.

"On another note, if she wasn't lying and trashing the prospective dem nominee, then I would definitely be all for her staying in. It lends excitement and interest to the race. However, the way she is campaigning to trash obama can only hurt dems in the general election. Also, the lies and distortions that she and her campaign constantly spew are not beneficial for anyone, including herself. Furthermore, her campaign's tactic of dissing 3/4's of the states claiming they don't count, really doesn't help the dem cause in general. I really can't stand her train wreck of a campaign."

I agree. It's the tone in her campaign, the nastiness, which is the big problem here. Huckabee is a nuisance for McCain but he is not trashing him daily.

"The point is, this ain't over. There is no miracle necessary for Hillary to take this. Nobody is saying that Hillary has it clinched by any measure, even if she wins big today. But pretending that Obama has it clinched is just fantasy."

Do the math! It's the delegates, stupid!

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She can't win, especially if OH and TX are close.

""At the general-election level, half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents across the country would like to see Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) as the party's presidential candidate; 43 percent would rather Hillary Clinton be the nominee.""

The reason this not chosen as the headline is because Greg wants to drag out Hillary's defeat longer.

Kensdad you said
"that are a major concern or the ones that are swing states, primarily FL, OH, MI, PA. there may be some new ones this yr like VA, MO, NV, NM, IA (though not as big as the above.)"

Is your point and the Clinton campaigns point is that the people in those states that supported Ms. Clinton would only support the Dems if she is the nominee? I just don't see that. The Dem turnout has been off the chart and so to think that Obama would not show well in those states that he loss to Ms Clinton just does not make any sense to me. I think either Dem will be strong in those swing states based on the desire to "turn the page" on the past 8 years. I just don't think the logic fits that just because one candidate wins the Dem primary in a particular state that the eventual nominee is handicapped in winning that state in the general election.

>>>The point is, this ain't over. There is no miracle necessary for Hillary to take this.>>>

No miracle, no, but at the very least she needs some freaky backchannel accounting tricks. Look, I don't say she has to pull out, even though it's pretty clear to me that the fearmongering stuff and muslim stuff is going to do permanent damage to the party's chances regardless the nominee. That's her business, I understand. And frankly, if she doesn't win the nomination now that she has gone this route, she'll be mud in the new governing party. So maybe she thinks from a personal power standpoint she has no choice.

So it's excusable in a certain sense, but as a voter you still have to look at the big picture. Any scenario that has her getting the nod relies on superdelegates, and on changing rules and seating uncontested states that get apportioned to her advantage. Do the math. She needs 60+% wins in almost every state AND those things, not one or the other. But these scenarios guarantee a damaged party that will limp into a general that it should have stormed into.

I think people simply have not done the math. She simply cannot reasonably catch up without these maneuvers. Keeping her alive now only increases the chances that these will be deployed. Fortunately, I think the supers will see that and end this thing early. But who knows.

God, I can barely hear myself think for all of the WHINING in here! He hasn't lost Texas or Ohio yet. And, even if he loses them, he can still win Pennsylvania. He just has to sell himself to the voters. For the record, I sure don't think she should stay in if she loses Texas. I don't think she should stay in unless she wins the popular vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If she does, though, I think she should stay in all the way.

I am impressed with Mrs Clinton's willingness to put her self out there on SNL (despite her unflattering rant during the last debate) and the Daily Show. However, I have been unimpressed with the latest Clinton campaign tack aligning themselves with a more Republican message. To me, this election is a referendum on the Republican message, and considering how much I have come to disrespect that message, I don't see how I could vote for a democrat who embraces it. If Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain are the nominees, I believe that it will be a less-than-inspirational campaign between two message-challenged camps. "Change? Who needs change?" I do. At this time, I feel that I would vote independent in a McCain-Clinton scenario. I do not support Mrs Clinton staying in the race after today's primaries.

I think he is quoting Bill Richardson here. Another example of poor messaging around the delegate math?

Here is the near future scene I would most like to witness if Hillary Clinton remains in the race for the nomination.

Hillary has demanded that the media fully vet Obama,even though I think she just wants negative media headline attention giving weight to trumped up innuendos about Obama.
Well, let's see this newly 'fair' media engage in efforts to allow that Hillary herself be fairly and fully vetted, allowing the public to put facts to her rhetoric and claims, i.e., to thoroughly vet her innuendos about herself.
That means demands for her tax returns for the past eight years, demands for her First Lady papers, as well as any actual supporting facts that would give some time-line and substantive contents to her claims of 35 years of experience. I don't believe the media has yet even looked closely at her work product as a Senator.

listen, the voters are indeed very aware of the "delegate math", and what they know tells them that (1) 2025 is required under the rules to be the nominee, (2) neither candidate can win sufficient delegates to get to that number, (3) which then makes all arguments for how winner should be determined fair game (meaning leader in pledged delegates is fair argument...meaning leader in popular vote is fair argument...meaning more representative collection of states needed to win the general election is fair argument...meaning super delegates weighing in is fair argument...meaning determining way to count the florida and michigan delegations is fair game.

the voters are quite saavy and informed and just not buying the obama and media misinformation that there is no way hillary can win the nomination. the rules do not say the person with more pledged delegates but not the required 2025 delegates wins the nomination by default.

the rules say 2025 required otherwise no definitive winner and an alternative means of determining the nominee need to be worked out by the party and the electorate.

the only one served by short-circuiting the process at this juncture in john mccain and the republicans who get an unchangeable dem nominee who's not been fully vetted by the dem nomination process (see Rezko...see Canadian government memo...see reverend jeremiah wright).

hrc wins 3 tonight and the process advances forward!

I think this means that people just don't really understand the math. I don't think she should 'have to' drop out, even if she loses both states, but do people understand she can't possibly win unless she has a blowout in both states, and wins states in upcoming contests that he's heavily favored to win? I'm sure that info added to the question would drastically alter the numbers. Sure, she can stay until the end, but why would someone do that when they simply can't win?

I went to this link

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

I set every race including the ones on March to 10 point wins for Hillary Clinton. She still ends up losing by about 60 pledged delegates.

Hillary can not win, and she doesn't gain any new status, power, or political clout by continuing to run. Her best case scenario would be for her to win Texas and Ohio and then get out. That would allow her to go out on a win.

But by continuing to campaign she only helps the Republicans by driving up Obama's negatives without forcing McCain to take the backlash that comes from running a negative campaign. She would be, for all practical purposes, a Republican because she would be advancing their agenda and hurting the Democratic agenda.

P.S.

If Obama wins just Vermont tonight (March 4), and Mississippi on March 11, he will have clinched victories in the majority of states, he will have won 25 states total. And that is without counting any other states that he is likely to win on March 4 or later.

Obama is currently ahead of Hillary Clinton by about 1 million popular votes.

Obama is going to have won the most delegates, and the most states, and the most voters, by the end of this process. There is nothing that Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, can do to stop it.

Nobody's polled me yet.

If she lost a big state today and stayed in, one thing would be obvious. The remainder of her campaign would be all about preserving an opportunity to run again in 2012 and caring much less about helping the Dems in 2008.

But going 55-45 Clinton, which is frankly more realistic, gives Obama are ~60 delegate win.

...in one breadth, he's the messianic candidate who can "bridge the divide" and "stop the fighting"...

...in a second breadth, he's the "dyed-in-the-wool" ardent progressive giving the opponents hell!

which is it folks? oh wait a minute...that's right, he doesn't project onto his followers, they project onto him whatever willy nilly sentiment strikes them at the moment.

good post, Greg. These numbers are EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!

If Mrs. Clinton does indeed win both Texas and Ohio this evening, it will be the first feather in her cap of electability. These two contests will be deciding factors in the GE and are semi-open contests. I think educated voters need to review the definitions of the different primary types. Hillary won in NY, a closed primary state and NY & NJ primary states where independent, unafilliated and/or republican voters aren't represented. When the contests are opened up, Senator Obama runs the board. Independent, unaffiliated and/or republican voters from closed states are free to vote for Senator Obama in the GE. The only question is, what is the motive for independent and republican support of Senator Obama throughout the primaries?

I buy into the innoculation theory of primaries, in that, the longer they go, the more prepared the candidate is for the generals. With that said, I'm also a Pennsylvanian (albeit an Obama supporter), so I have vested interest in wanting this to go on. I'll start whining after April 22.

See, I think there's something to what John Kennedy thought about elections -- that they're not mechanical processes, but chemical ones.

Lots of things can still happen between now and the convention, and the vote difference between Hillary and Barack is really quite small. I'd guess from her POV, staying in makes sense and clearing out doesn't...

If Clinton comes up with anything at all that sticks to Obama and diminishes him as a candidate then he should not be the nominee for the fall because he will lose for sure. She has been subjected to that kind of treatment for 15 years and she is still here and a viable candidate in spite of what any of you say. If Obama cannot stand up to this for even a month – which is all it has been since the campaign has gotten really serious – then the Republicans are in for four more years. Clinton should not concede easily just because vocal Obama supporters want to win at any cost – which is what their clamoring for her to pull out amounts to. That view is not good for the party and most Democrats do not support it. In fact, the recent poll suggests that most Democrats are concerned with the possibility of buyer’s remorse if Clinton pulls out. Even with a loss in both major states, essentially half (49%) still want her in the race challenging Obama to prove himself.

Seems to me that if the only difference between these two candidates is 150 votes out of 4000, there sure isn't any reason for either one to drop out so the other can be annointed. It is more than obvious that Democrats who will be voting in the general election in November are pretty much evenly split between them. Why should one candidate's supporters be disenfranchised on so little evidence of inevitability, just so that the other one can supposedly be treated as the choice of all?

Many of you are bogged down in the infighting of the Dem nomination. For a moment let's assume that neither candidate gets the number of delegates needed for an outright win. Since most of their policies are so similar, The next question that really should be asked is electability. For my money the evidence is in which candidate won primaries in more of the states that are likely to be critical in the election. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I keep chalenging friends to tell me why they hate Hillary, and not use the word 'Iraq.' So far, every one of them is as single-vote-ish as the anti-abortion and gun-nut single-issue voters they claim are crazy.

I think even the Democrats have inhaled the FOX fog from the last, count 'em, 17 years of vilification. And many of the OBA-Maniacs on campus only know that fog, and go along with it because it's All-American.

Personally, I think the campus craze boils down to 'The Class president came over to MY house, and MOM told him to take his feet off the coffee table. I was SO embarrassed. I hate my Mom. And don't you think the Class president is dreamy?' Most of them couldn't WAIT to get away from someone who kept telling them to pick up their clothes, and Hillary keeps reminding them there's work to be done.

As for me, screw 'Turn The Page!'
I want vengeance on these Republicans!

Why are dem rules so complicated? They don't have any winner take all states. What the hell is a super delegate for? Texas has a primary and a caucus and people can vote twice. Then they go and throw out two of the most populous states, MI and FL. Then get nervous when we don't have a clear winner by now.

Obama will not go negative. Its not who he is. The Clinton camp put on a full blitz and dominated the news cycles and it looks like their timing is pretty good for today's races. She will get a short term bump and then folks will find out that she is no closer in delegates. The negativity will catch up to her and she will be scrutinized more (and lot of these in the air issues will be explained). Meanwhile the superdelegates will move over to Obama at an even faster rate than they are now. While the rank and file dems may want this to draw out. The party leaders absolutely do not.

Book it.