that he may be the nominee.

http://www.newsweek.com/...

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party.

doubt it.  The CW is that he felt the Clintons damaged his chances for the Presidency.

Stop scaring me.  Enough with the "politics of fear!"

That's what it will take.

Something to allow a superdelegate to say "Yeah, I know he won Virginia, but that obviously never would have happened if the voters had known this."

I said this just upstream.  

In a sense, HRC/GOP are like a basketball team down three possessions with eights seconds to go. Some combo of turnovers and lost rebounds must occur; hitting the actual shots is almost secondary: the opportunity must come before the action.

WRT to some specific incident, the longer the clock is not in play, the better chance someone can manufacture something in some manner or another.

After seeing the Canadian dirty trick, it's obvious one side has consolidated, whether overtly, covertly or not at all. They both share a sense of desperation about being taken out of the game altogether.

come convention time he will be the leader and be able to say he has taken the high road and did not hurt the party with his campaign. Overturning that would damage the party for decades.

winning a national election by 1 vote and then ignoring the rest of the country as to how you govern.  Apples and oranges, I think.  How winners are determined isn't the same as style of governance once in office.

do you really think they're being that rational over in the Clinton camp?

This thing is starting to remind me of 2000 in its ugliness.  Nothing will be agreed on now between the two parties because we're in the middle of the game and both will only do what is in their best interests and not the other.  So that means we go to the equivalent of the Supreme Court, or the convention and superdelegates.

That is, unless the bigwigs step in early and persuade her to hold her fire.

and if Obama self-destructs because of Clinton and McCain is president, she's done forever.

I suppose you're right.  

But is she thinking that clearly?  She seems to believe there's on one else who can save the planet.

after seeing HRC's awesome lack of judgment and strategy in this campaign (not planning for after 2/5, not knowing the mechanics of the Texas primary/caucus until a week or two beforehand), I would not bank on them being able to formulate any kind of competent strategic decision.

The Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind- from the Source of All Human Knowledge:

The brigade was not completely destroyed, but did suffer terribly, with 118 men killed, 127 wounded. After regrouping, only 195 men were still with horses. The futility of the action and its reckless bravery prompted the French Marshal Pierre Bosquet to state "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." ("It's magnificent, but it isn't war.") Rarely quoted, but he continued: "C'est de la folie"- "it's madness."[7] The Russian commanders are said to have initially believed that the British soldiers must have been drunk.

So why does she continue, knowing, as she must do, that Obama will have no trouble getting at least 90 Superdelegates?

Is her campaign not doing the math? Is she insane?

I think this is the only theoy that really makes sense. If Obama loses, she'll still be the most famous Democratic leader, and in 2012 running against a 75 yo McCain she'll get to say, you should have chosen me in 2008, now you'll get another chance.

It would be stupid to assume one would win in 2012 especially if a stronger Republican showed up like say Jeb Bush against Hillary Clinton.

I know that LBJ acquiesced to it in 1960, but that was LBJ's only chance.

Obama would be an idiot to be her VP anyway, but especially after a stolen nomination.