First she is going to win at least three of the remaining primaries and she is going to win them decisively. West Virginia and Kentucky are going to cement her argument that Obama can't win blue collar whites. Puerto RIco is going to demonstrate that Obama has a ways to go with Hispanics. 

Second, Florida and Michigan will be seated and his lead in pledged delegates will be down below 100.

Third there's the Jimmy Carter argument. In 1980, Ted Kennedy, who had only 1/3 of the delegates, had his name put in nomination at the covention and gave a rip-roaring speech, that was meant to turn the convention in his favor. THe issue before the floor was whether to allow pledge delegates to vote their conscience on the first ballot. The Kennedy forces lost. And Carter went on to get creamed in the general election. Though Carter blames Kennedy for his defeat. It pretty clear that Carter was an extremely weak candidate and probably would have lost anyway. Would Kennedy have won? Who knows but it would have been a much different race. We wouldn't have had to defend Carter's sorry record, at least. 

What's the connection here to Clinton-Obama? Well, Clinton is making a case against Obama kind of like the case that Kennedy was making against Carter -- that he's an extremely weak general election, despite his lead in the democratic primary. We didn't have the means to avoid marching off a cliff in 1980, but subsequent to that we gave ourselves that means. Clinton is urging the superdelegates to employ that means and to give her one last set of opportunities to demonstrate just how weak Obama really is. A presumptive nominee does not lose a swing state like West Virginia by 40 points. A presumptive nominee who gets blown out after he's all but declared the victor is a very, very weak presumptive nominee. And if he can't wrap up his own party because he can't wrap up swing voters who vote in democratic primaries, how is he possibly going to reach the broader base of swing voters he needs to win the general election? 


Fourth. Even if she doesn't succeed in getting the nomination, she consolidates her position as titular head of the Clinton wing of the democratic party -- which is something like 49.5% of the party at least. With that standing, she gets first dibs at the VP slot, if she wants it. She gets massive influence over the platform. And, if he gets defeated in 08 -- which I think is very likely -- she becomes the automatic heir apparent, the nominee in waiting for 2012. Indeed, by losing, but staying in, she makes Obama need her more than she needs him. She will have already lost the nomination in this scenario and she will have nothing else to lose. He will have an election to win or lose and he won't be able to win it without her help. Moreover, if he loses the election the "Obama Wing" of the party will fracture and will need to regroup around some other candidate come 2012. 

For all those reasons, there is simply no way that Clinton is dropping out. There is no way she won't have her name put in nomination at the Convention. And there is no way that she plays the nice conciliatory loser and goes away quietly. This is high-stakes power politics, played at the highest possible level. That's something the Clintons do with great skill!