Lieberman beat Lamont. Let's start with that. The Democrat's second choice played it to the center, and came out as a Senator. It can happen.
The nomination is winner take all, and The Math says she is a loser. Why keep beating Obama around with boxing gloves filled with mud? Why pile his shoulders with enough dirt to weigh him down if it will never be enough to bury him?
She should have stopped before Texas. She didn't.
She should have stopped after Texas. She didn't.
She should stop after Tuesday. She won't.
She should stop when she loses the nomination.
The Money:
Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the "Friends of Joe Lieberman" committee used the funds they had set aside for the General election even though he was now an 'Independent Democrat' running nominal as a member of 'Connecticut for Lieberman.'
If Clinton loses the nomination and goes home, her campaign is in debt. If she stays in for an extra day, she has in the neighborhood of $30,000,000 that she might no longer have to return.
One or two people have been killed for less than thirty mil. before, but is it legal for her to keep it? Who knows. We don't really have a functioning FEC, so it is not clear what the rules are, and by the time we do $30M can buy you a couple of lawyers. Maybe some of the ones here can chime in on an opinion.
The Electoral College:
Now there is the ugly rub. Wouldn't an Independent run just give the election to McCain? Probably, but has anything happened so far that makes you think she worries about that option? A McCain in '08 could lead to a Clinton in '12. As a worst case scenario, it doesn't seem to scare her too badly. But let's consider how the General might look. Consider the magnetude of difference between caucus turn out in Clinton v. Obama compared to the turn out for McCain. Consider the confusion and expansion of the battlefield states. What VP choices might make the race 'Bi-Partisan' and interesting?
Besides, she has already lost the Primary. If winning the Presidency is all that matters, then her chances are still better in a hard to win General election where she can fight through Novemeber.
But lets do some math anyhow...
This is where the Clinton "States that Matter" calculations start to matter.
Give McCain: ID, WY, UT, AZ, NM, LA, AL, GA, TN, SD, ND, MT, MO, IN, AK, VA, MS, AR, OK, KS, TX, NE, NH...
So far we are only up to 180 electoral votes. He needs 90 more, or this thing goes into extra-innings.
What if Clinton can take:
CA, NY, OH, MO, PA, WV, FL, MA, RI...
Hey, look in the places where she is strongest, that makes 186 electoral votes!
Give Obama:
WA, OR, NV, CO, MN, WI, IA, MI, IL, KY, NC, SC, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME...
I am being generous, and he is back in third place with 172, and we have some crazy deal making on the horizon.
The Nightmare:
Now, no doubt I messed up on the math here, and while I have reason to say that the states would break that way, who knows?
How would Richardson, Dodd, Huckabee, Edwards, Warner, Clark, Bloomberg, or any other number of curveballs change things? If there it is even a question, then it raises the possibility that it might happen. There is a lot of dollars and power at stake, and questions create opportunities for all the players.
Ok... Ok... there are a dozen reasons why it can't - won't - shouldn't - musn't happen...
... but not too long ago in Connecticut, something like this did happen. The mix of Democrats to Republicans is very different, but the egos in play, and the basic fight between progressives and the DLC within the Democratic Party is the same.
Tell me why it won't happen.