I don't have a whole lot to add, but the AP has published an analysis piece that pretty much devours Clinton's candidacy alive. Any other candidate not named "Clinton" losing this badly so late in the game would've been pressured out of this race a long time ago. And they would've had to come up with a better "path to the nomination" than:
- Stay in race.
- Fight©.
- Win!
But instead of calling a spade a spade, the media has danced around Clinton's extremely dim hopes of winning (other than the occasional article in which one of Clinton's own supporters gives her a small-percentage chance). Obviously, for the media, longer race = more happy campaign fun = hundreds more [whatever]gate articles!
That's why it's so refreshing to see the AP finally cut through the crap and lay waste to the mythology of Clinton's continuing campaign.
The article, entitled, "Analysis: Time, Delegate Math Working Against Clinton," spells it out in a powerful (and long-overdue) lede:
Time is running out on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the long-ago front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination who now trails Barack Obama in delegates, states won and popular votes.
And we're not the only ones who realize how she completely undermined her sole reason for staying in the race during Wednesday's awful debate:
Clinton argues to Democratic officialdom that other factors should count, an unprovable assertion that she's more electable chief among them. But she undercut her own claim in Wednesday night's debate, answering "yes, yes, yes" when asked whether her rival could win the White House.
The article states that superdelegates simply don't think much of these supposed "game-changing gaffes" Clinton and her supporters have so breathlessly promoted. They quote one of Obama's latest superdelegates, who succinctly dismisses the "bittergate" hysteria:
"I investigated and studied the context of the whole speech," said one of the six, Reggie Whitten of Oklahoma, who told Obama on Tuesday he would support him. "I think the comment was to some extent taken out of context and blown up, but I can tell you I think people in small towns have a lot of reason to be bitter," added Whitten, who grew up in Seminole, a town of 6,700.
The article lays out the current delegate totals and the math Clinton needs:
Clinton needs to win a forbidding 65 percent of the delegates in the remaining primaries to draw even with Obama in pledged delegates. It's a share she has achieved only once so far, in Arkansas, where her husband was governor for more than a decade.
"Forbidding"--nice adjective. And note that Obama has won three races with 65% of the vote: Illinois, D.C. and Georgia. He just missed in Virginia, with 64%. Not one of these was a caucus.
The article then strikes a "the clock is striking 12 on Cinderella" note:
Given the unyielding delegate math, Clinton has relied for weeks on forbearance from party leaders to sustain her challenge. And they are growing restless, eager for the epic nomination battle to end so Democrats can unify for the fall campaign against John McCain and the Republicans.
"Forbearance"! You've gotta love that. Rather than being impressed with her moxie and Fighting Spirit©, it reads more like the party leaders have simply been merciful toward her failed, flailing campaign.
And about that Clinton name keeping her afloat?
In fact, it's unlikely any other candidate could have survived as long without coming under overwhelming pressure to withdraw.
Glad someone else out there in media-land gets it.
It's great to see a major media outlet finally saying what we've known for months about this race. Go read the whole thing!