Peggy Noonan's take on Senator Clinton's continued perserverence despite the lack of a path to a nomination is staggering (Wall Street Journal).  It's a great article, and it speaks to the petering out of her campaign.  It brings up a few points (my own, not Noonan's) worth noting that will ultimately end her pursuit of the nomination before the convention.  Here's the link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html


Her money will run out.
Its hard to tell if she can continue to raise money.  With only 3 million at hand by the end of February, you have to wonder how much more she could raise in March - especially now that there are more endorsements for Obama, that her negative polling numbers are going up, that he has weathered the Wright storm, and that her surrogates are writing threatening letters.  

I've noticed that her campaign events now take on a much smaller feel.  They're not the bigger rallies we saw before, even as late as before the Ohio/Texas primaries.  Even if all her money wins her Pennsylvania, she has to win by 15 or more to make it worth while.  Then how much will she have for Indiana or North Carolina?

No matter how good her policies are or how staunch her supporters are, money is what is needed to fuel her comeback - and money is not what she has in abundance.

The media narrative will change soon.
The media has been fueling the race.  Lets face it, whichever side you are with, the media has favored the underdog.  Initially it was Obama.  Recently it was Clinton.  When the Obama negativity was riding high, they pivoted back to favoring Obama.  They love a tight fight, but only if they can keep a semblance of validity to their reporting.

The problem is that that validity is eroding.  In the face of the lack of a path to the nomination, the increasingly negative Clinton numbers, and the SDs starting to shift towards Obama, they can't necessarily argue that the race is still close.  While some will argue they are only seperated by 1.4% of the popular vote, 3.6% in RCP polling average, and 131 in delegates (after SDs figured in), this is after 85% of the nation has voted.  It would take a calamity this side of Spitzer to overcome that lead for Clinton.  The media knows this.  They also know that viewers will start to question the media bias if they continue to report a tight race, when there is none. 

(BTW, whoever was standing in for Olbermann yesterday did a horrible job.  Stalemate?  It's not by far.  More like she's got her King and Pawn and he's got his King, Knight, a Rook and 3 pawns headed her way.)

Also, we are starting to see more discussion, more than ever, of Clinton bowing out.  She is fielding questions daily now about whether or not she will bow out and when it will end.  Presumably, the media smell, see, taste the blood in the water.  On CNN, even Mark Halperin last night said that the media will quickly drive out a candidate the moment they sense that candidate won't make it:

I think if you look at reporters and their questions, not every reporter, but some reporters have written explicitly, some opinion columnists have written explicitly that she should get out of the race. She is asked now every day. Anytime anybody suggests it, it gets big headlines.

I think we're of two minds. We like this story; bigger than O.J. and Anna Nicole combined for people like you. But people more often are trying to drive her from the race. It's not really an anti-Clinton thing, although there's a lot of that. It's really reporters always want to drive people who lose out of the race. It's just what we do.

It happened to every candidate who is already out of this race. The minute there's blood in the water, the question they're asked everyday over and over is, when are you getting out of the race, why aren't you getting out of the race, shouldn't you get out of the race? So and so says you should get out.

Why do that if they want ratings?  It makes for a reportable story.   Clinton stays in the race despite this.  Clinton won't give up even though Senator so and so says this.  Once you get it in the head of people that she is fighting a losing battle, support and money start to erode.  Its happened to every candidate that's dropped out.  Its happening now.  The ending of the Clinton era is a story in itself, and the media will run with it.

Obama will pivot towards McCain.
This last point is predictive and based more upon my own wishes, than actual fact.  But it seems that he is pulling himself out of the kitchen sink battle.  Let's be clear on this - Clinton started the negative campaigning.  Somehow, I keep hearing people saying both are getting to negative.  That's interesting given the fact that when Obama was taking the high road, everyone said he wasn't a fighter.  When he started fighting, everyone says he being negative.  Granted, his campaign is not as clean as free of dirty politics as he wishes it to be.  But certainly, its not comparable to the scorched earth tactic Clinton has taken.

But this is where Obama can take advantage of the situation.  He needs to come out and say, "Look, we can fight all we want, but I need to start fighting with McCain if no one else will, if not for me, for the sake of the party in November."  At the same time, he needs to say, "This does not mean I presume to the nominee, far from it I will continue campaigning to win the hearts and votes of Democrats through the nation - its just that we need to keep or focus on what is important - keeping Bush III from the White House."  

When Obama starts down this road, the media will increasingly focus on McCain versus Obama.  Ultimately, with little cash in hand, with the media increasingly focusing on her demise, and the Obama vs. McCain title bout coming in to focus, there can be no way that Clinton can legitimately argue for her continued campaign.  It would be then be it, allowing us to pivot to healing the party.

You may or may not support him, but you have to at least recognize how impressive his campaign has been.  In this last week, we've seen him deal with issues that no other candidate in the history of Presidential Elections has had to deal with.  Think about these problems for a minute.

1.  On the Rev Wright Issue he had only half of the Democrats support.  While the Clinton camp didn't say anything initially (of course she says something now - since she can't help herself - we know how she truly feels on this), their supporters and Clinton herself didn't come out and support him while the Right Wing tried to publicly assassinate his character.  If he was the nominee, the whole party would have had his back.  But even without that support, he managed to turn it into something for the ages - a speech that will be remembered in American History. 

2.  He has to fight both Hillary and Bill Clinton.  This has never happened in Presidential Election history.  Bill Clinton is more than just a first spouse - he's a popular two term former President.  Whatever he says gets more weight and airtime than anything Michelle Obama says that isn't negative.  So not only does Obama's campaign have to deal with Hillary's amazingly brazen kitchen sink, they ahve to deal with Bill's legacy-busting deep thoughts.

3.  He has to fight a deep seated racism.  Ferraro is simply wrong.  Look at Pat Buchanan's recent comments.  NYTimes' Kristol, etc.  Its there and he has to overcome it.  Normally this would probably be his number one problem, but who would have thought a candidate had to deal with No. 1 and No. 2.

4.  He has to fight John McCain.  This is the easiest of the fights, but nonetheless he knows he needs to keep addressing it to keep the fight alive.  All the while, he's trying to still work hard for his own party's nomination.


My wife, a die hard Clinton supporter - now agrees.  What Obama has done in this election is special.  Its never been done - and the MSM's obsession with sensation has overshadowed his accomplishments.  You can hate him all you want - but he has perservered and shown leadership throught it all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Damn those video cameras.  Who would of thought they would have followed her around?  I mean, it was sooo dangerous, the reporters should have been wearing bulletproof vests too right?
Now if only all the stations reported this and had all their pundits ponder out loud if Clinton lied a little or a lot.  And will she give a speech?