Well, it may be that Pennsylvania is too much part of the narrative by now for a coalition of super supers to end everything in one dramatic, coordinated intervention before then -- without causing all the wrong kinds of tension. So I'd expect a slower drip toward Obama between now and then, possibly including a major endorsement or two. If something more high-pressure were to come at one time, wouldn't you look for it around, say, North Carolina?

What we really have here is an unprecedented anomaly. No primary campaign has ever ended because the candidate failed to win; primary campaigns end because the candidate runs out of money. For the first time, in Hillary Clinton Democrats have a candidate who can fail to win but never run out of money.

By any standard that anyone would have applied to any primary race prior to a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton has already lost the nomination. She's in second place in every meaningful category, and has been in second place in every meaningful category all along. A candidate who is this close to finishing the race and is still in second place, with no realistic hope of finishing in first place, is, in standard English, called "the loser." But losing does not determine whether losers drop out; lack of funds do.

Both political parties have become so accustomed to letting the fundraising market do the dirty work of forcing losers out of races that they seem to have lost the ability to tell the difference between winning, losing, and sticking around. In the end, the fact that the second-place horse has not yet crossed the finish line doesn't mean that the race is still being run.

Now, I don't know what the solution is, other than for nationally elected Democrats to grow some backbone, but the rest of us should at least see the reality of the event for what it is. Any candidate other than Hillary Clinton, in her place, would have been forced by lack of funds to "suspend" her campaign four weeks ago. For better or worse, failure to win does not cause this particular candidate's fundraising to dry up. She will be "running" until such time as she does run out of money, which may be never. This is new territory for Democrats, but we should not mistake the continued presence of Hillary in the race for evidence that she has won anything, is winning, or can possibly win in the future. She's just the first primary loser in our party's history to not run out of money.

And it's hard not to sympathize with Hillary on a certain level here. She has a big staff who depend on her for their jobs, and she has money to meet payroll, so why not keep paying them? And who knows, maybe Obama will die, and if she's still "running," then she'll have to be given the nomination. Even if such a thing is vastly unlikely, it's at least a little bit possible, and if she has the cash on hand to stay in the race and serve as the fallback choice, why not? If Hillary had dropped out in late February, when any other candidate in her place would have been forced from the race, and Obama died tomorrow, she would be in no better position to grab the nomination than Joe Biden or Al Gore or several other Democrats.

The Dems have to pretend that PA might matter because, as jj says, it is part of the narrative and no one is in a position to explain otherwise.  Shortly after PA, or at the very latest NC, when the mathematics makes the rest of the primaries clearly irrelevant to the delegate count and majority of the popular vote, I would expet the supers to declare at the behest of the leadership.  Then it will be over.

The interesting question is whether Hillary will accept that outcome at that point or continue a public campaign to get the supers to change their minds.  I wouldn't put it past her.

roid, Hillary has already effectively lost the superdelegate race too. Shortly after NC/IN, her only hope will be persuading _pledged_ delegates to switch. Will she stay in the race and make that attempt? Absolutely, unless and until she runs out of money.

Rhub -- How do you mean, effectively lost the superdelegate race? (I think she will lose the superdelegate race, but that sounds to me like a very different point.) ... Either way, if (or let's say when) the supers split in favor of Obama, and Clinton attempts to press on for any significant length of time, it's hard to see how that wouldn't pretty much destroy her future in the Democratic Party. It would be insane.

P.S. Don't call the king "roid." ;)

'k, G[h]oul

Count me among those who think the Clintons are, and have always been, out for themselves - and for the party only when it serves their interest. They do have a win at all cost mentality. Nonetheless, they haven't   gotten where they are by being stupid, or politically suicidal. Which is why, at some point she will likely step aside (if she doesn't, even some of her ardent supporters who DO care about the party - will shift to Obama, effectively signaling that it is over.

She will eventually get out not because she cares so much about undermining the party and losing the 2008 election, in fact, politically an Obama loss benefits her UNLESS she is seen as contributing to that loss by sabotaging his chances. The question really is how much longer does she stay in, and how much damage is she willing to inflict on Obama while she's there. If she were a Mike Huckabee, she could stay in as long as she wanted and it would be fine, but she won't . She'll keep trying to undermine him, and that is insidious.

Ambinder has been making that case for a while. I don't think it's a good argument. The question isn't whether the party elites think the race is over yet, it's whether they think it's generally smart politics to remain uncommitted. Possible reasons:

1) Smart politicians never commit themselves to something when they don't have to.

2) It's better to err on the side of caution.

3) There may be a strategic advantage in having the "kitchen sink" thrown at Obama now, rather than November

4) This primary has been excellent for candidate fundraising, and can continue to be.

5) Residual ties to Billary make endorsing Obama a difficult move even if it's inevitable.

6) As long as there is an element of doubt in the outcome, they wield even greater power than usual.

7) For such high-profile people to endorse would effectively close the primary; this might draw a lot of criticism. The talking heads might make a stink about it, and HIllary supporters might feel abandoned by their party. I wouldn't put it past Hillary to try to drag them down with her in vengeance. Whereas, if the pundits keep harping on "mathematical impossibility" longer, the outcome could be more acceptable. Convincing beats coercing.

That's not to say the top of the party pyramid isn't genuinely undecided, but there are, after all, other potential reasons for them not to endorse yet. Compare this to the reasons to endorse: 1) the extended primary may cause irreparable fissures in the party, and 2) Obama should be free to attack McCain instead of having to deal with Hillary. Number two isn't a very good argument---Obama isn't much of an attacker, his skill at tarring his opponents is more parry-and-riposte, in which case it doesn't matter how many people are ganging up on him. The first argument isn't really good either. Right now the Democrats are very narrowly divided between the candidates, and hopefully the media will do its job as surrogate in #7, and the decision will become less difficult.

jj

I posed the rhetorical question a while ago whether there is anything that Hillary wants, any sort of future, other than toe be president.  I am not sure she cares about a "future with the Democratic party."  Beyond that, I have often expressed my doubts whether she cares about the party at all or ever has.  If she sees this as her last possible chance to be president -- which it almost surely is -- she may go down grasping at every straw no matter the consequences.

The party hierarchy has to be somewhat unhappy at the possibility of Hillary damaging the party's chances in November, although I think they were actually curious to see whether he can take a stiff punch and recover.  So far, the signs are positive but not dispositive.

At the risk of repetition, I think it ends with PA if Hillary does not win in double digits there, NC if she does.  What she will do when she has lost both the supers and the pledged delegates I find hard to predict.  It may depend on whether there is anyone she respects who can tell her that it is okay to stop, and I rather doubt that that person is Bill.  If she aspires to some cabinet office, then she would have to make a very gracious and magnanimous speech supporting Obama.  I don't know whether she has any such aspiration (Attorney General?) or whether she has that kind of a speech in her.

Roi --  True, imagining HRC's end in this is almost -- as Freud said of imagining our own death -- impossible.

It would take at the minimum a reconciliation between Freud and Jung to figure Hillary out.