It would have been pretty clear if Sen. Obama had just been able to take Ohio and Texas: no more endless speculation from the blogosphere, and talking heads, and salaried “political expert” columnists.
But since it isn’t, let’s just revel in the wildly differing opinions on this race. From Marc Cooper at the Huffington Post:
“There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.”
The undemocratic situation Cooper refers to is the possibility that the pledged delegate count will be so close to deadlocked that party-chosen superdelegates will be the one to choose the president (for a recap on what superdelegates are see Fred Ortega’s post of last month.)
Meanwhile, two columns up at the Huff Post, Stephen Schlesinger argues there are plenty of historical examples of superdelegates elevating a candidate with fewer pledged delegates (Clinton) over the front runner:
“There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that
says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates
short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by
dint of that achievement, be handed the party’s designation. This
argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama’s campaign.”
And, of course, the final x factor is what could happen if Florida and Michigan get their delegates counted (Clinton might still be behind in that scenario, though it would be much closer). Or, as Cooper and Schelesinger’s colleague, Mark Green, suggests, perhaps Florida and Michigan will attempt a new primary which would actually have all the candidates on the ballot.