Superdelegates, in all of their deliberations, must certainly be considering the following:

The Clinton campaign claims that Hillary’s win in Ohio and her lead in Pennsylvania signal that she is more likely than Obama to win in a general election. These state’s constituents include large percentages of the kind of white working class voters who have so far favored her over Obama and whom her campaign says the Democrats must draw in large numbers if they hope to win in November. But does this argument hold, if we factor in the large numbers of Republicans who have cast and will be casting votes for Hillary in those states and who will not be casting them for her in the fall? According to the Boston Globe last week, about 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for Hillary in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi.

Weigh those stats against the popular vote figures. According to the New York Times, Hillary won her big comeback victory in Ohio by 200,000 votes. But now it is clear that half of those votes were the votes of Republican spoilers. In Texas, her lead was 100,000 votes. In other words, she lost Texas to Obama both in the final tally of pledged delegates but also, minus Limbaugh’s ditto head spoilers, in the final tally of “true” Democratic votes.

Before the Hillary campaign really heats up in Pennsylvania and starts running the 3 a.m. phone call ads and all the rest, turning voters there away from Obama, doing the work of McCain, wouldn’t it be best to send an unmistakable and unspinnable message to Hillary that now is the time to concede if anything of what she stands for is to be gained in the next four years? Someone please end the pain!