As Jon Steward says, "BOOM! THERE you have it!"

this just reeks of her paving the way for her drop out of the race.

I heard her doing the whole "I've had more Americans vote for me than him" lie in Kentucky, which kind of contradicts her "party unity" BS. There's no reason for her campaign at this point beyond vanity and a desire to build the notion in her followers that somehow she was robbed. I expect a lot of statements in favor of party unity from her, followed by lines that subtly cut a Obama.

Convenient for her, innit?

That's another extreme. The contenders won't be able to effectively campaign in much of the country on the runup to the one-day primary. Currently, at least, they're visiting every state shortly before the primaries, and get a chance to energize the local base.

Oh. Well, THAT would be just... sleazy.

Well technically, they didn't vote for Obama, they caucused for him, and the people in Michigan and Florida did vote for her, even if the delegates for those states are not being given a vote at the convention.

Technically, she's correct.

Things the candidates have been right on:
Clinton: 1

The contenders DON'T campaign in much of the country. They campaign wherever the next important contest is. If you're not a swing state, they couldn't be bothered.

Kaos, it's my understanding that she only has the popular vote if you count contests in which Obama was not on the ballot at all.

I am confused. If Obama makes it to the general elections, though, it means that the Democrats vested him with such a mandate? Or that's not enough and he needs a mandate from Clinton Republicans as well?

Yeah, because that worked out so well for Gore.

Unfortunately, that's the meaning she wants people to take from her "technically true" language. If you're trying to leave your listeners with a certain impression, that is what you are saying no matter what the technically true phrasing is.

From the Wall Street Journal:

. . . faced with growing pressure to drop out of the race, Sen. Clinton is getting hit with conflicting advice from within her own camp. Some of her top strategists are warning that she is injuring her political future by staying in. Others -- notably her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and strategist Mark Penn -- are urging her to remain in the race. She has beaten Sen. Barack Obama in key swing states, they argue.

. . . Inside her campaign, Sen. Clinton isn't asking for advice, forcing advisers to hold off discussions on what she wants from the process if she loses -- from dealing with campaign debt, to her role in an Obama bid for the White House. "The campaign has broken down to those who drink the Kool-Aid that Hillary can still win, and those who don't, and are considering their options," one operative said.

...In an effort to keep financial backers in the tent, Sen. Clinton hosted them at a cocktail party at her Washington, D.C., residence last week. When she came downstairs to greet the 50 or so guests, Sen. Clinton laid out how she could still win the nomination: Beat Sen. Obama in the popular vote, then persuade the superdelegates to vote for her on the theory that she would be better able to beat Sen. McCain in November.

I'm biased, of course, but it doesn't reflect well on ability to be president when she doesn't seem to understand the current political realities. At best, we can only assume a machiavellian plan to split the party going into the convention so Obama can't win against McCain.

With Obama's nomination looking inevitable now regardless of Hillary's machinations, the saddest thing to observe is Bill Clinton's role in this. It's totally incredulous that he's playing this role of persuading Hillary to soldier on and to instigate the shism at the convention. Talk about the legacy being squandered.

Reminds me of how contemptuous the Bush administration was of "realists." Since when is it admirable to claim to know better than professionals? Isn't that a little... elitist?