I, as a strong Obama supporter, also had a strong reaction to Hillary's very negative attacks on Senator Obama that are the subject of numerous diaries, including Delaware Dem's and Georgia10's. I was upset that she was waiving his mailer and calling down shame upon him for his response to her health care plan. And I, too, had thoughts of "well, I'm just not going to vote for Hillary in the fall if she is so intent on grabbing power that she'll viciously attack my preferred candidate, who is probably the only politician that has inspired me in my lifetime.
But then, like a flash, I realized what her attack was, and I wasn't so angry any more. I won't be saying that I won't vote for Hillary in the fall. Because Hillary won't be the nominee in the fall. This is just her death rattle.
(I would say that it is her last throes, but Dick Cheney has made that a singularly unpredictive phrase).
More on the flip.
We see every presidential candidate, or legislative candidate for that matter, with their backs to the wall or in the last stages of their campaign lash out at their opponent. Only the person behind goes this negative, making the strongest chargest against the leading candidate. It was McCain after South Carolina against Bush when he sealed his fate by accusing Bush of "twisting the truth like Clinton" - which is what was considered over the line in the Republican party. He was D-U-N done at the time and out.
When you see it through that lens, it's not so bad. It's Hillary recognizing the mortality of her presidential ambitions and making that one last gasp at a chance, the Hail Mary pass that, when coupled with recovering an onside kick or two, might give her a chance. Normally when we see this in a campaign, there really isn't cause for concern and you write it off.
The reason I think I was so initially concerned by this is the same reason you were probably initially concerned (if you are an Obama supporter). The Clintons are some of the greatest campaigners of the last half-century, and you can never count them out. So no matter how much they look defeated, you are giving them much more of a chance than they really have. If her name was Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, but in the same place with the same number of delegates, you wouldn't be that concerned. You'd know they were beat.
And the math bears it out. You think of a 150 pledged delegate lead for Obama. I see it as, as it stands, a 53%-46% delegate lead - which would be a convincing victory in any election contest. Not a blowout, but a decisive victory. To give you some perspective, FDR beat Dewey 53-46 in 1944. No one considered that anything but a decisive victory. And, in the popular vote (excluding Fla. and Mich.), Obama leads by a similar margin, 52% to 47% (numbers from RCP). That's similar to the margin of Ulysses Grant over Seymour in 1868 and....the margin of McKinley over William Jennings Bryan in the "realignment" election of 1896. These are no small victories. Despite losing in California and New York, Obama has decisively defeated Hillary.
This is just the denial phase for her. So many people thought the end of the last debate was her valedictory and began writing it as such. She's recognized the concept of her defeat being possible and she - as well as her key strategists who are draining the coffers of her campaign like Blackwater drains the federal budget - are making their last fight against it.
Although I won't believe Obama has won until he is making his acceptance speech, I think all of this fury from the Clinton campaign signifies that it's over.