How Could She? Did She? Who Cares?

Even by modern media standards, the reaction came hard and fast. What began as an article in the New York Post tabloid ended up as a lead story in the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as every national cable and network news broadcast in the country. In the blogosphere, conservatives and Obama supporters alike raised their voices in unison to cry for the blood of the offending candidate. In short order, the Obama campaign called for an apology, and the mortified Clinton campaign was all too eager to offer one.

Hillary's alleged crime? Ruthlessly hinting that Obama could be assassinated, handing her the nomination on a silver, bloodstained platter.

For some, it didn't take a stretch of imagination to believe in the charges. Hillary is, after all, widely suspected to be on friendly terms with the forces of darkness, including, but not limited to, vampires, ogres, and those little buttons at crosswalks that don't seem to do anything, but that you still feel the compulsive need to press multiple times. What political tactics could lie beneath such an obviously diabolical personage?

Insinuating that her opponent could be assassinated, for one. Her words may have been poorly chosen, but there was no ambiguity about what she was actually trying to say. And unfortunately for all the sensational headline writers and rabid bloggers, what she was actually trying to say was perfectly normal.

But I think Hillary's words should speak for themselves. These are the words behind the firestorm, from an interview Hillary gave with the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls:

CLINTON: Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. Historically, that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

EB: You don't buy the party unity argument?

CLINTON: I don't because, again, I've been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it and there's lot of speculation...

In order to justify her efforts to prolong the race, Hillary tried to point out that the Democratic nomination process typically runs through June. She brought up two historical cases to back up her point. And yes, one of them involved someone getting shot. But the assassination wasn't the point -- the attention was meant to be placed on the fact that the 1968 primary race was still going in June. Given the larger context of Hillary's statement, it's absurd to read malicious intent into what was simply a clumsy statement.

Beneath all the layers of contrived controversy, there lies a fact that has gone almost completely ignored: Hillary's historical argument for extending the race is just plain stupid. In both of the presidential races she cites, the California primary was held in June. For people who need a refresher course in American population demographics, California is a big place where lots of people live. Thus, the California primary is generally considered to be a big deal. However, due to changes in the primary calendar, the 2008 California primary took place about three months ago. Montana and South Dakota are the only states left in the primary process, along with Puerto Rico, our friendly lil' territory to the south. Needless to say, the primary contests in these areas aren't exactly going to be game changers in the race.

In other words, the game is over, Hillary lost, and the media is desperately clawing for juicy scandals to boost ratings and/or circulation. In times like these, I'm proud to be an American.

The End of the Beginning.

Of course Hillary will try to spin it, but the truth is pretty obvious. Last Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton lost. Badly. And this time, there may not be a chance to make a comeback.

Hillary has had a few recent victories, but none of them were able to effectively cure her chronic case of delegate deficiency. She needed a miracle -- more specifically, a miracle in Indiana and North Carolina. With Obama entangled in a messy PR crisis over his bombastic pastor's troubling remarks, the timing seemed just right.

It wasn't. Although Hillary technically won Indiana, the home of one of her closest political allies, her astoundingly slim margin of victory turned it into an effective defeat. In North Carolina, Obama's massive 15-point victory crushed any hopes Hillary may have harbored of closing the pledged delegate gap. Now, only one question remains: is the Clinton campaign finished?

If this supremely unpredictable election has taught us anything, it's the fact that in American politics, nothing can be accurately predicted. Hillary Clinton is a remarkably resilient politician, and a vicious fighter when cornered. But this time, the sheer mathematics of the situation look pretty hopeless.

For over a month, the pundits have pointed out that, barring divine intervention, Hillary will reach the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign shifted its strategy accordingly, hoping only to narrow the gap significantly enough to entice the majority of the unpledged superdelegates to cross over to their side.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's primaries, that strategy appears to be dead. Not only has Barack Obama been able to expand his lead in both the number of pledged delegates and the popular vote, but once-timid superdelegates are boldly pledging their allegiance to Mr. Hope. For the first time ever, Barack Obama can claim the lead in every single column of the primary ledger.

Is it possible for Hillary to win? Yes. The superdelegates are free to cast their vote for any candidate they choose. In a freak twist of fate, they could all have a sudden epiphany and decide to vote for Hillary -- making her the nominee. But within the realm of reason, Hillary's chances aren't so good. If the party elites decide to arbitrarily snub the candidate that the majority of Democratic voters have chosen, it's a pretty safe bet that more than a few disillusioned Democrats will stay home on election day. After humiliating presidential defeats in 2000 and 2004, it seems doubtful that the Democratic leadership would plot a course straight towards a massive party schism.

According to multiple sources, the Obama campaign will declare victory on May 20th, following the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. For all practical intents an purposes, he might as well do it tomorrow. The news media is already slowly fading out its coverage of Hillary Clinton, silently acknowledging the end of a hotly contested race. A few outlets, such as Time magazine, have taken a less subtle approach.

And why shouldn't they?

We can't be completely certain about anything until after the convention. But we can be reasonably certain that Barack Obama will walk away from Denver as the Democratic party's nominee. In other words, phase one of the presidential race is over.

Phase two is just beginning.