Hillary Clinton's latest and last argument is that, whatever the delegate numbers say, Obama is a weak candidate who will lose in the general election.  Therefore, this argument goes, superdelegates and others principally concerned about elected a Democratic President, should reject Obama and choose her.  This argument now being relentlessly pursued by her empire of unflinching surrogates -- in public and, more importantly, in a thousands of breathless calls to superdelegates and opinion shaping "elites."

Put aside the nettlesome questions:   Why, if Obama is so weak, has Hillary already lost to him in the race of elected delegates?   Does the head-to-head polling data really support her claim of relative strength versus McCain?   How did this weak candidate manage to emerge and take the lead from a candidate who everyone believed – including the candidate herself and her strategists – would have the nomination won by early February?  Here is the much larger flaw in her argument:

Any candidate who is simultaneously under heavy attack from nearly half of his own Party – including a former President who is a famously gifted campaigner – and whose primary opponent is, for tactical reasons, being actively abetted by the opposing party, is going to suffer some at the polls.  The Clintons are simultaneously knee-capping Obama and complaining that he doesn't run as well as a Democratic sprinter should.   "Why are you stumbling like that?  Why can't you run straight?"

Obama’s alleged political weakness is not inherent – he’s an enormously gifted person whose extraordinary rise from anonymity to national stardom has been no accident.   His biggest "weakness" is really his misfortunate to confront, for the moment, organized adversity that would stymie anyone political leader no matter how clever.   Think about it.  Obama faces:  the former presumptive nominee; the most well-connected and well known family in American Democratic politics; and a sophisticated political machine composed largely with former Clinton Administration types yearning for the spoils of Restoration; virtually the entirely of right wing talk radio and cable TV; and the Republican Party; and the Republican Party’s nominee – all simultaneously working hard to tear him down.  (The precise grounds on which they do the tearing down – "Wright," "flag pins,"  "bitter," and whatever will be next – are all secondary, fungible, and instrumental – they do not begin to add up to serious political liabilities).    

The political conditions affecting the Democratic race right now are extremely unlike what Obama will face in November.  Whether or not the partisans of the primary contenders are completely unified, they will at least not be campaigning against one another.

To put it differently:   To the (limited) extent to which Barack is doing less well against McCain than in highly artificial general election "match-up" polls conducted more than 6 months before the election, those results reflect highly artificial conditions that say nothing whatsoever about how a real world November contest would unfold.  

Conversely, Hillary Clinton now has advantages that are similarly ephemeral and artificial:   A Democratic opponent who is extremely reluctant to criticize her strongly, lest her supporters be alienated for the Fall race; an electronic media that want the lucrative primary pageant to continue; and the active support of a Republican party that either prefers her as the nominee, or wants the two Democrats to bleed each other dry.

Superdelegates can vote how they wish.  But any superdelegate who used snap-shot "horserace versus McCain" polling results that reflect the extraordinarily adverse -- and anomalous -- conditions Obama faces right now would have to either be (1) disingenuously rationalizing a decision based on other grounds or (2) really stupid.