Clinton's references to other Democratic contests not being "wrapped up" until is June is misleading because the nomination contest this year started two months earlier.

Yet this is Clinton's argument for staying in the race; as her way of saying that this seemingly endless contest really isn't that unusual. Despite being a bad comparison, the public at large takes her word for it.

As I've said before, the length of this contest is more a sign of two strong candidates rather than two weak candidates. (The third option, that one candidate is strong, and the other is weak, doesn't make much sense.) But, heading toward the general election, hearing things like "Obama took longer to get the nomination than anyone else" and "it was won with the smallest majority of delegates" could make the Democratic Party nominee sound bad-- Even though it's the result of strength, not weakness. (2008 was a great year for Democrats to run, and we had many other high quality candidates.)

So, it's much better for the party overall for Clinton to keep on emphasizing that this rather long contest shouldn't be thought of as too long at all. On certain matters, like this one, it seems Clinton has infinite credibility and is getting a free pass. This argument received even more attention due to Clinton's rather unfortunate comments, leaving the specific "June is normal" claim unchallenged.

Ultimately, Clinton achieved a twofer: She brought up a vivid and well-discussed reminder that this contest isn't long, and she has started to rather dramatically implode her campaign. This will be her "Dean Scream" moment and by the end of June we'll have a nominee and everyone will have forgotten the worst of what we've been through.

The Clinton Camp, falling short of other options, likes consider in hypotheticals: If the allocation system of the Democrats was winner-take-all, instead of proportional, Hillary would be the nominee! And, If Michigan and Florida counted, she'd lead in the popular vote!

The fallacy here is the assumption that Obama would have campaigned in the same way even if the rules were different. With this magical assumption, Obama still would have taken his name off the ballot in Michigan and would never have campaigned in either state. Further, the campaign would still have given the smaller Super Tuesday states the same focus and wouldn't dedicate those precious campaigning resources to an increased effort in states like California.

Such an assumption shows either a lack of economic intuition or a desire to be deceptive. The truth is, no one knows how the contest would turned out with any significant change in the rules. There are just too many variables to consider, including the actions of other candidates, like Richardson and Edwards, who might have dropped out and endorsed sooner (remember how quickly Giuliani dropped out on the Republican side?). Presumably the unions would have made different endorsements too.

If the rules were changed, the scenario of Clinton winning is clearly plausible. But it is just one plausible scenario among many. In effect, Clinton might as well just say If the rules said only spouses of presidents who served in 1994 could win, then we'd have the nomination!

Another fallacy is the Clinton tactic of insisting that Obama has a problem with "working class white voters." But we all know that performance in the primary election can't be mapped to performance in the general election. I look at this race and see that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two very strong candidates. Hillary looks at it and thinks it means there's someone wrong with Barack, rather than right about her.

It's as if they were in a foot race, with Barack at the finish line and Hillary three paces behind, saying: "Boy, you're a terrible athlete! You almost got second place."

It's getting harder for conservatives to deny that climate change is a problem. But for the past two decades, they've been against it as a "junk science." When you've been against something for such a long time, how can you admit you were wrong? The psychological dissonance is just too strong. One maneuver now is to say "those environmentalist made the wrong arguments for the wrong reasons, even though we know they were right."

And there is another out, which Orson Scott Card has found. While you can't get a social conservative to believe climate science, they seem to be more open to the concept of peak oil. As it turns out, many of the same policy prescriptions for dealing with global warming also address peak oil issues. If the debate gets framed in terms of peak oil, I wonder if more conservatives will be convinced.

Some say she's still running because she still has a chance. Others say she's running to seek the VP slot. And others suggest that she just doesn't fully grasp the reality. Now her campaign seems to be saying she's doing it to battle sexism.

I don't think that's why. Her campaign is $20 million in debt, with over half of that sum owed to HRC herself as a personal loan. But look at where she got that money. That's right. Book Deal.

She's probably got one lined up, but they want to give it a catchy title like "All the way" or "Till the last dog dies," and it would make sense only if she still hung in there.