Rachel Maddow was right last night and everybody else was wrong. As usual.
Yesterday I read the story about how Clinton, when asked about the required number of delegates needed to cinch the nomination, said she thought it was "2209" -- a few numbers off the actual number of 2028 that the DNC claims are needed. Why did she say this?
I thought then and so did Rachel, who tried valiantly to convince all the smarter-than-thou white (and one black) males on MSNBC last night, that this was a throw-down, a gauntlet from the Clinton hand, the message being: "I'm taking this to Denver. I'm not dropping out!"
But as much as it pains me, I have to disagree with one part of Rachel's analysis. This was said in the afternoon when she and her people all fully expected a sizeable win in Indiana - not the "squeaker" she got. That and the hoped-for miracle of either besting or coming very close to Obama in North Carolina would have "closed the deal" for Clinton and left staying in the race a no-brainer.
Today, she has no hopes of getting the needed delegates, even if she somehow forces the acceptance of Michigan and Florida by the DNC, the money will by drying up, superdelegates will come out for Obama even more handily and the popular vote is against her (again). The only metric she can use is that she is more electable. And that one only works from the peculiar side of the looking glass the Clinton campaign has been peering dimly through for the last few months.
But she still ain't gonna quit. She may not last to the convention, but I think she's still gonna try and bleed every possible delegate and vote she can from Obama in the remaining few weeks. I don't even like to think about the why of this anymore, but I'll be amazed if she doesn't. Rachel was right.
Now playing: Wooden Shjips - We Ask You To Ride