Not that anyone in the press or the A-list will tell you that. Until the delegates cast their votes in August, there is no nominee. That's what "presumptive" means. Now, normally, the presumptive nominee has such a lead in pledged delegates that it's very unlikely anything will change before the convention.

This year, the contest is so close, we won't even really know the pledged delegate breakdown until after all the state conventions. Then there are the uncommitted/Edwards delegates. And, of course, Super Delegates, who can more easily change their support (and sometimes change themselves, Donna Edwards will become an SD in June, for example).

I expect we will have a presumptive nominee in June. But never has "presumptive" been a more important modifier.

for once huffpo and i agree, sort of:

"in their minds, there is no conceivable combination of circumstances conclusive enough that she would be forced to concede defeat, short of her personally seeing a majority of all conceivable delegates actually cast recorded votes for Barack Obama in Denver."

that's me.

that's what's in my mind.

force everyone of the superdelegates to put their votes on record.

that way, they get all due credit for being on the right side if obama wins.

and if he loses?

well, now

that raises delicious political possibilities.

for cleaning out the democratic the stable

and returning the democratic party to it's liberal, non-corporate roots.

i have assumed that clinton would go gracefully after june 3rd.

but i really hope she does not.

i am beginning to get a glimmer from campaign comments last week that she may not.

i look at it this way:

since the end of feb the superdelegates have been waiting for clinton to fold her tent.

once she does, the major conflict problem the party now has is "solved" and the general election campaign can proceed.

but

by publicly stating that she is going to denver clinton hits the donkey upside the head and finally gets its attention.

as i see it, the ONLY power clinton has right now is going to denver for a first ballot.

i didn't say threatening to go.

i said going.

if she does that,

watch first for an outburst of anguish

and then watch the serious political work start to get done.

work that will not otherwise get done.

what might that serious work be,

well how about forcing obama to take a v-p slot and wait his turn in order to avoid a fatal split in the party?

pelosi and reed talk tough now, but present them with the possibility that they'll get fewer new troops in 2009 than they had hoped for and watch how they suddenly become easier to work with.

i can dream can't i?

Because she's a good Democrat. If she were willing to threaten to split the party as Obama's basically done, she'd be in a much better position. Because the party apparently has decided to reward that behavior.

Having said that, if she were to fight on through the summer, I can't decide what would happen. Whether the party would harden against her or if she'd win because all of their Jell-O spines would collapse.

when the dems have obama -

the prefect wedge candidate?

"If she were willing to threaten to split the party as Obama’s basically done, she’d be in a much better position. Because the party apparently has decided to reward that behavior."

precisely, the party is willing to reward that behavior.

and the party expects clinton to be the "responsible" democrat.

why reward the obama campaign's behavior?

because the leadership of the democratic party is allergic to conflict.