And therein lies your problem.

Of the 795 un-pledged delegates, 258 are congressmen, and 27 are governors. Some may not want to vote differently from their constituents, and some won't care. I don't know the breakdown. Then there are 411 “DNC members”: I don't know how many are elected state or local officials.

All of that adds up to a major wild card in terms of the total-delegate count — which is another reason I think it's premature for party big-wigs or Obama's campaign to call for Hillary to drop out now. Also, 23 are district party leaders and 76 are “add-ons.” I don't know what those last two categories mean.

The mere existence of un-pledged delegates suggests that the system is , by its nature, not 100% democratic (if they were dolled out proportionately, there'd be no point in having them). In short, I don't think the aim of un-pledged delegates is necessarily to directly reflect the pledged-delegate breakdown.

The democratic element in the equation is that the pledged delegates number about twice as many as the un-pledged ones.

I'm NOT saying that I agree with this, just describing it.

Obama has a good argument re: pledged delegates. Clinton has a good argument about having won more big states, because they tend to be more important in November.

If Dems from larger states feel “cheated” by party bigwigs and operatives (un-pledged delegates), I suspect they'll take it out on the party.

I could be wrong [I'm shrugging now.]

But nobody is going to “push” her out of the race. No one has that power, except perhaps a united cohort of superdelegates. If, as you posit, party leaders attempted to do so (before writing were clearly on the wall), that would indeed (and rightly) not be taken lightly by her supporters.

Stray voices from the punditocracy as always are not going to influence anyone to do anything. It is her decision, but a good part of this judgment call, their argument goes, has to be based on a bigger picture and a long-range view.

I think a really good example of negativity turned positive is the Red Phone commercial.

I really don't like fear mongering and think HRC is doing a lot of it.

Pushing Hillary out before Pennsylvania might help the party in one sense, but it could tear the party apart on another front.

Some Hillary supporters will downright resent the party (some will even resent Obama) if the party pushes her out when it SEEMS that she might still have a chance. (Remember, most voters aren’t familiar with “delegate math.”)

The calls for Hillary to drop out (Jonathan Alter advised her to do it BEFORE TX/OH) already remind some Dems of Bush's tactics here in Fla during the 2000 recount: essentially, “Gore — give up, move on, and let me have an easy win.”

That's expected from Bush/Rove, but it's NOT what Dems are supposed to be about. If the party appears to do that to Hillary, it could create a whole new wave of Independents.

Remember also, many Dems PERCEIVE McCain as a liberal or centrist (as do many Independents). Many voters who FEEL that the party cheated them out of an honest primary contest might not have a problem voting for McCain (or staying home).

Reality plays a part in voter behavior, but so do perceptions (even erroneous ones).

Now add to the mix that Florida MIGHT hold a second primary for Dems (which would give average voters the sense that Hillary still has a chance). Gov. Crist supports the idea, and I suspect that our overwhelmingly Republican legislature will support it (for the same reason that Limbaugh told Rs to vote for Hillary in Texas today).

Honestly, I don't know if Michigan is still considering a second primary.

My point is that most Hillary supporters likely think that she still has a chance, and making them feel disenfranchised could cause major problems for the party (and for Obama, if he wins the nomination).

Republicans hope the race continues. “It's not a matter of splitting the party as much as it is providing us on the GOP side of the aisle with talking points and ammunition for the fall campaign,” wrote Republican Neil Newhouse. “While the length of the Democrats' race certainly has captured the attention and interest of the electorate, the longer this goes on, the better chance [John] McCain has in November.”

I assume that you think that Senator Clinton should fight on so we can see more like this?

“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

Where she endorses the Republican candidate above her fellow Democrat? Or has she secretly switched parties?

It is true enough that 1 1/2 extra months of fence mending would probably be inconsequential. But there are other factors, not the least of which is that the inevitably escalating negativity between increasingly rancorous Democratic camps may sour an electorate that a mere few weeks ago was ecstatic about both its choice and its chances. Perhaps more importantly, it's a huge blow to the survivor's financial resources. And all the while Sen. McCain smooths over his own disgruntled party factions.

(For the record, I'm not arguing one way or the other; my point was only that those calling for Sen. Clinton's withdrawal are not doing so because they think she shouldn't be or isn't qualified to be the nominee, so Damozel's (and others') perfectly understandable and justifiable reasons to support her candidacy are somewhat beside the point.)

TO: Interested Parties

From: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America

RE: The Real Meaning of March 4th

………………………………..

While the Clintons gamely continue to try to move the goal posts, at some point there has to be a reckoning. It is a very simple question – what is their path to secure the nomination? No amount of spin can change the math. We look forward to their tortured answers on Wednesday morning.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print

Hard to see how she can possibly get back in this under even the most positive scenarios.

If you doesn't win both TX and OH by at least 8% and probably 10% she's going to be pressured.

“her core problem is generational”

Yes, it's hard for Hillary to change her age.

If Hillary waits until after Pennsylvania (which has more delegates than Ohio) before considering dropping out, the party would have about 6 and 1/2 months to repair rifts. If she drops out tomorrow, the party will have about 8 months.

If the party can't come together in 6 and 1/2 months, what makes you think it can come together with an extra month and a half?