Let's leave aside for a moment that the net increase in Delegates that Hillary got by winning Ohio, Rhode Island and (sort of, but not really) Texas was just wiped out by Obama's win of a state that has barely half a million people in it and <li><a href=”http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801”>California's final apportionment of delegates.</li></a> Let's leave it aside because, hell, the MSM has sure as hell failed to noticed it, or at least is scared to mention it for fear of being accused of bias by Hillary. Instead, lets look at what the MSM assures us are the very significant changes in the race since Hillary's Amazing Second Comeback.

The NYTimes breathlessly tells us that Hillary's victories in Texas and Ohio <li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/politics/06elect.html?ref=politics">altered the delegate race dynamics.</a></li> The WaPo, obediently transcribing one of Wolfson's conference calls, warns us Dems that Obama's loss of three out of sixteen races since Super Tuesday exposes a <li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318.html”>dangerous downside .</a></li> in David Axelrod's naively misguided strategy of actually trying to win the most delegates. Oh, and <li><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182191.php”></a></i> Josh informs us that Hillary's campaign is, or at least was, inside Obama's <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop”> OODA loop.</a></li> while <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/on_conference_call_obama_advis.php
"> Greg </a></li> tells us, in passing, that "Obama's pledge delegate lead may well prove insurmountable, in which case whatever damage Obama takes from Hillary's 'commander in chief' assault will ultimately prove inconsequential."

Inconsequential? Not if Hillary has anything to say about it. She is determined that there Will Be Consequences for Obama's uppity bid to take from her That Which is Rightfully Hers. But insurmountable? Yes.

On March 4, before the vote in Texas and Ohio, Jonathan Alter <li><a href=”http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240”>ran the math</a></li> and discovered that Hillary could not catch up to Obama's pledged delegate lead, even if she won every remaining race by a double-digit lead. After those primaries, <li><a href=”http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010“> he ran it again</a></li> and found that she was in worse shape than she was before the victories that the rest of the MSM says has “changed the dynamic.” Based on his calculations on Slate's delegate calculator, he said to “beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.”

So where's the catch? Well, there is the fact that <li><a href=”http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751“>Slate's delegate calculator sucks.</a></li> Slate's calculator awards delegates based on the overall total in the state. In fact, however, delegates are awarded based on the the margins in each Congressional district within the state, not the vote total statewide (some states have even more complicated formulae. Texas for example.) The day after the night “the dynamic of the race changed,” Kos diaryist PocketNines ran the math on a district by district race and found that <i>even if Hillary won every Congressional district in every remaining race by a margin of <b>24.9%,</b> she would still lose the delegate race.</i>

That's right. It's worse for Hillary than Alter thinks it is.

The rest of the MSM seems to know this, but they refuse to confront it head-on. Nonetheless, it's a reality that keeps intruding on the story they want to write about how Hillary has staged yet another big comeback through her indomitable pluck, resilience and toughness. Unfortunately, it is impossible to write these stories without at least sidling up to the question of just how in the hell she thinks she's going to win this thing (assuming that's actually her plan at this point). And that's when things get a little surreal.

last Thursday, we had Roger Zelany at the NYT tells us how Hillary and her team are <li><a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/politics/06clinton.html?ref=politics”>Looking at the Math and the Map, and Hoping the Tide Can Turn</a></li> Roger assures us that this race is still winnable for Hillary. According to him, its not about whether it is mathematically possible to capture enough delegates to pull ahead of Obama. Instead, for him, the important thing is that there are still thirteen weeks left in the race. No, really. That's what he said.

<blockquote>But it is doable. More than 13 weeks remain before the last contest — the June 7 contest for Puerto Rico’s 63 delegates — and any number of game-changing gaffes, knockouts, debates, advertisements or world events could influence the race by then. To a large extent, the Clinton strategy is simply to run out the clock and hope — by dint of primary victories and her candidacy’s credibility — that she compiles the most delegates by then.</blockquote>

Got that? She can still win this thing because it's possible some unforeseen game-changer to come along that enables her to rack up a 70-30 win in every remaining state. Of course, that game-changer has to happen while there are still delegates to win. Tick Tock. Every election that occurs before the coming of this game changing event means she must win the subsequent races by ever higher margins.

And did you notice how, in Zelany's mind, this game changing event is apparently <i>more</i> real than all that silly old math people are doing on the delegate count?

On that same day, WaPo blogger Chris Cillizza rolled out <li><a href=”http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_blueprint_hillary_rodham_c.html”>Clinton's Blueprint for Victory</a></li> According to Chris, Hillary can rack up the big W in the end by fearmongering on national security, convincing the uncommitted superdelegates to hold off on a choice until the convention, get a revote in Michigan and Florida in which she wins by the same margins she racked up when she wasn't actually running against anyone (gee, is it just me or is this blueprint looking a little tenuous?) and, my favorite, by “being a fighter.” No really, that's what he said. Oh, and about those elections? Chris says this:

<blockquote><b>The Votes to Come:</b> Rather than look back at the states that have already cast ballots in the Democratic race, project forward to the 10 states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam) yet to vote. Bayh rolled out this talking point on Wednesday, noting that his home state of Indiana won't vote until May 6; "We have six million people in our state," said Bayh. "They have a right to be heard." The idea of ensuring that more primary votes are meaningful is a powerful one in the Democratic Party. It also enables Clinton to argue that no reasonable assessment of where the contest stands can be made until after Puerto Ricans have their say in caucuses on June 7. </blockquote>

Allrighty, then. “Project forward.” She doesn't have to actually win them by thirty point margins. She just has to “project forward” and get the delegates to put off a decision until after June 7. Once again, Clinton can win, not by winning votes, but through the passage of time.

Yep. They sidle to it and hint at it but dare not say it: <b>Clinton can only win if she can convince superdelegates to flush the entire primary process down the crapper and let her steal it.”</b> Many Hillary supporters who are willing face the inexorability of the math nonetheless are clinging to this notion. You can find some of them in the comments of this blog, madly spinning away reasons it would be good and just and right and moral for the superdelegates to do this. Evidently, Obama's supporters, latte-sipping eggheads, foolish college students, and, of course above all, African Americans are all a bunch of naïve children in need of a firm (preferably old and white) hand to guide them to their own, and the party's, best interests. And unnervingly, one can get the sense that they are going to riot if the supers refuse to steal it for her.

Those in the know, know better. As <li><a href=”http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010”>Alter</a></li> said:

<blockquote>I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.</blockquote>

Shatter? If we're lucky, they'll stay home on Election Day. If we're unlucky, they'll vote for McCain, who is, after all, a guy who many Democrats find unobjectionable, galling though that may be to those of who are following this thing closely. And, if we're really unlucky, we'll have a scene in the streets of Denver that will make all the talking heads comparing it to the 1968 convention in Chicago (though oxygen deprivation may have a calming influence on the crowds). We're talking about a rift in the Democratic party at least as bad as the one Reagan engineered in the GOP in '76, and possibly as bad as the one in the Republican party in 1912.

In 1948, or even 1996, it might have been possible for a Democratic candidate perceived as having stolen the nomination to win in the general. After 2000 and 2004, that possibility does not exist. Democrats are rather touchy about stealing elections now. Touchy like sweaty dynamite.

Hillary has to know this. She cannot win the presidency if she steals this nomination and she cannot win the pledged delegate lead. So what's she doing? Why is she systematically kneecapping the likely nominee, saying things that McCain will be converted into commercials in the fall and getting her supporters more and more stirred up into a state where they won't be able to reconcile themselves to an Obama nomination.

It's getting hard to wonder whether this is really about 2008 anymore. McCain is old. He's very old. He's had melanoma twice. He's hinted that he might not run for a second term. It's getting difficult to avoid the conclusion that throwing the thing to McCain and then running again in 2012 is not at least Plan B for Team Hillary. It is becoming very difficult indeed to see any other rational explanation for what she's been doing and saying over the last two weeks.

For her True Believers, that's probably an acceptable outcome to eight years of Obama. What's four more years of war when giving She Who Has Suffered that Which is Her Due? For those of us who think that this election represents a once-in-a-generation opporutnity to pull off a realignment that once again makes “Democrat” the default choice for voters and changes the basic governing assumptions of both parties (i.e. those of use whose names are not Paul Krugman), it is unforgivable.