Jackson Jambalaya

I hope she'll concede on Wednesday. I'm pretty certain that if she doesn't, she'll at least concede after Pennsylvania.

Regardless, she will not be able to take the nomination at a brokered convention if current trends continue. Even Michigan and Florida combined would not be enough to overcome Obama's current pledged delegate lead plus the number of delegates he's likely to take in over the next month. She would get a mere 38 delegate lead (105 to 67) from Florida, and a mere 18 delegates (73 to 55) from Michigan. Right now she's trailing by 162 pledged delegates, and superdelegates will not split in favor of a candidate who is behind in pledged delegates.

The one way Clinton COULD take the lead at a brokered convention is a commanding lead in Ohio and/or Texas--by 10 points or more--followed by strong performance elsewhere and a commanding lead in Pennsylvania. But if I had to lay money down, I'd say it will probably be over very soon. Possibly this week.

Prediction: After Obama takes Texas and Ohio, Al Gore and John Edwards both endorse Obama....(I'm surprised Al has waited)......

The question though is why has she still remained in the race at all? Tin ear? Sour grapes? Bill Clinton?

You guys are assuming alot and that is Hillary loses tomorrow. I don't assume anything. If she goes to convention only behind a couple of hundred delegates, it aint over. The author makes a good point on the math and frankly, the Dems screwed themselves as they are so afraid of competition with their proportional representation crap.

I'm convinced Bill is whispering in her ear to keep it up to the bitter end.....and you are right....make no assumptions yet.....still a long, long way to go.....

how much $$$ has she given out the last few years?

And I strongly second Tom's opening comment. I hope she concedes tomorrow......goes away and takes Bill with her.

Al is waiting, rumor has it, because he's the person who will be expected to broker a compromise at the convention if it comes to that.

But let's do the math. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they use Clinton's victories in Florida and Michigan instead of doing a revote, even though a revote is the more popular option among Democratic Party leaders. That still has her gaining only a 56-delegate lead from those two primaries. Obama would still be ahead by 106.

If she doesn't absolutely kick Obama's butt in either Texas or Ohio tomorrow night, I see her dropping out of the race. My suspicion is that she will win Ohio, but only by 5 to 7 points, and that if she wins Texas at all it will not be by very much. That's no way to beat Obama's delegate lead, even if she successfully gets the original Florida and Michigan delegates with no revote.

Her argument will be she is winning the big electoral states: NY, CA, TX, Michigan, FL, Ohio, etc. 106 is too close. Of course she could argue she would have more delegates if not for the rules either in the big states.

Consider also the uncommitted superdelegates. Why do you think they're uncommitted? If they were secretly committed to Clinton, they would have said so by now to make her appear more viable and to reduce pressure on her to drop out of the race. It seems obvious at this point that the superdelegates will favor whoever has a lead in pledged delegates, and that will almost certainly be Obama regardless of whether the Florida and Michigan delegates are used.

You're speculating about this scenario being interesting to watch because it would be horrific. And it would be. But the superdelegates realize this as well as anybody.

Let me pose this: Hillary drops out and endorses Obama. Would she ever consider the VP slot? I think Michelle Obama had some negative things to say about that (I like her). What say ye all?

Ehhh... I don't think that argument will play well with anyone. Proportional representation is the system we have, and the superdelegates are not going to suddenly decide to act as if it isn't.

We'll have a winner by the convention. Here again, if Clinton's numbers are no better than I expect them to be, I wouldn't be surprised if she dropped out Wednesday.

No way the do that. They realize what she is and this is their chancce to exorcise the Clintons from the party.

I like Michelle Obama, too!

I think Hillary Clinton would definitely consider a VP slot, but I don't think Obama would pick her. He needs someone with regional appeal, and New York isn't in play; she comes with high unfavorables; and she's alienated a lot of people within the party. I wouldn't be completely stunned if he picked her anyway to unite the base, but it's not what I expect to see happen.

He probably should, however, pick a woman. My suggestion at this point would be Blanche Lincoln or Janet Napolitano. If he does not pick a woman, I would expect him to pick Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark to bolster his foreign policy resume.

Clark sounds very goofy on the stump. bad pick. Clark had no traction last time around in a weak field.

Obama would be a fool to pick Clinton to be VP.

Wesley Clark? Damn, why not pick Elmer Fudd.

Clark did sound goofy in 2004, but he shares some impressive job titles with Eisenhower--four-star general, former NATO supreme allied commander--and that could help Obama if he's perceived as having a weak resumé on foreign policy. Clark also hails from Arkansas, a swing state.

I personally would rather see Lincoln, Napolitano, or Richardson, but Wesley Clark is probably on Obama's shortlist.