At the nation's military academies, the cadets are bound to live by the Honor code:

"A Cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." - United States Military Academy

"We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." - United States Air Force Academy

From Wikipedia: A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, or to avoid punishment. To lie is to state something one knows is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly.

Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication. Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same; however, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered.

Hillary Clinton did not simply "misspeak" about Bosnia or S-CHIP, Northern Ireland, or NAFTA or her role in a number of other "endeavors," she lied.

Her lies have been exposed. If she was a cadet she would be expelled from the any of military academies based on her conduct.

You cannot pass the "All-Important Commander-In-Chief" test by failing the most basic component of leadership.

How could she expect to lead the nation's military, and engender trust among those she leads by lying?

Can you trust someone who might send you to your death on a battlefield without being able to trust not just the soundness of the mission, but person giving the order, and motives behind it?

You cannot hold your army to one standard and lead, govern or live by another.

I've seen plenty of sports analogies about the current state of the campaign. It is portrayed as "horserace," as fourth quarter football, as four corners basketball.

But as  golfer, I think this is more apropos: a match play golf tournament. Golf is a sport replete with rules for everything from dress and etiquette, to equipment, course design, behavior of the gallery, and the rule of play, penalties and more. Breaking the rules results in loss of strokes (medal play), the hole (match play) or disqualification (both methods of play.)

If this was match play, Hillary would be shaking Obama's hand. We are past the point of being "dormie": When one player has won as many holes as remain to be played. (In an 18-hole match, you go dormie if there are 4 holes remaining to be played and your opponent is 4 holes down (behind). Win one more  hole, and you win the match. No need to keep playing, because there is no way your opponent can beat you, EVEN if you lose all remaining holes. Tiger Woods has sent opponents packing at 9 (holes up) and 8 (remaining to be played.) He could lose the eight remaining and still win 1 up.

In golf, every player, even one with minimal experience starts out level with every other player. It's your "handicap." If you're a child or senior, woman or man, beginner or novice, or professional, you can play the same course -- and win -- based on your handicap. And the rules apply equally: hazards penalize everyone equally. Failure to play by the rules penalizes everyone equally. And if you agree to play, you must play all the holes in the match. You don't get to cherry-pick. You can't play all the par 3's and not the par 5's. You can't skip the holes with water hazards or deep bunkers. Golf is the original "50-state strategy." Play 'em all or go home.

Poor sportmanship can net you some penalties. You can't scream at your opponent, abuse your equipment, and most of all you can't lie or cheat. You can't station friends up ahead to move your ball to a more favorable vantage point (like in the hole!) You have to fill out scorecards accurately, or else risk being disqualified, and you have to make sure that your card (filled out by your opponent) is accurate or out you go.  You shouldn't talk during your opponent's play and you just don't bad mouth your opponent.

Honesty in golf is paramount. In politics, not so much.

And here we are with Barack and Hillary: everyday, the Clinton campaign comes up with new measures about how she can "win." First we have the "states that count" argument that some states are more relevant than others. Then we have the popular vote argument:  that it's all about the people "expressing their will." Couple with that, the "disenfranchisement" argument that without Florida and Michigan the voting is unfair. Hook onto that the "caucuses aren't fair" argument. Then we have the "super delegates are smarter than the rest of us" argument: that the super delegates know what's best for the country.  Lately we've heard the "pledged delegates are free to (hear that as "should") change their minds if they want ("but as long as you change to me.") And the newest argument is that it's about the electoral votes (never mind that this is still the primary). That's supposed to indicate who is most "electable." Don't stop to think that the electoral college has no bearing on the primaries and the primaries have no bearing on the electoral college.

By all estimates there is no way Hillary can catch Obama in pledged delegates EVEN if she wins all remaining contests by blowouts.

Obama leads in states/contests won 29-14. There are 10 contests remaining. (She can't catch up based on this metric, either.)

We must assume that there will be no meltdown of Obama. (In fact, the opposite is looking more true: that Hillary will be the one to implode like a hydrogen bomb. All of that negativity has to go somewhere.)

The super delegates are not likely to suddenly jump ship to Hillary. (In fact, the opposite seems more likely, especially after the nasty epithets and threats from James Carville in light of the Richardson endorsement of Obama. You may see them go to Obama in a show of defiance.) So the likelihood of her winning masses of super delegates to turn the tide is: not very.

She cannot win and she is significantly behind. If this was match play, she'd have conceded graciously already, doffed her cap and shook hands with her opponent, picked up her ball and gone home.

If only politics were more like golf.