Well, technically speaking, there is another 'Stop-Obama' primary today, so I suppose it's incumbent on me to say something about it. But come to think of it, John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times offered on "Meet the Press" [1] last Sunday what I thought was a judicious appraisal in response to Tim Russert's first question to his panel: "Is Obama going to be the nominee?" Said Harwood:

"Tim, let me qualify that this way.... Stuff could happen to Barack Obama. If we found out that there was a secret poker game when Tony Rezko was paying Barack Obama to write Jeremiah Wright's sermons and to organize Muslim English professors for a new Weather Underground chapter, maybe Barack Obama could be stopped." 

The other panelists agreed. And so do I. And so do you. But here we are. Another primary. Another cable-news evening of Hillary Clinton cheerleading a crowd of delusional, hardworking white Americans into thinking they just drop-kicked one more for the Comeback Lady -- before, during and after which a battalion of other panelists will nevertheless concur with the grimly handicapping Harwood.

Meanwhile, the only thing the fast-diminishing ranks of undeclared superdelegates care about is that, in the interest of party unity, Hillary remains as non-malignant as is humanly possible for a struggling Clinton to be. So far, the light of the setting sun on her campaign seems to be coming and going, flickering at best.

For instance Katharine Seelye of The New York Times reporting [2] that "To those who suggest that she is simply biding her time until a graceful exit," Clinton "had a message" for them: "She is still running, and still arguing that she will be a stronger general election candidate than Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton is not -- at least not yet -- extending an olive branch." She hit Obama again on the gas-tax scam and, accordingly, repeated that her "campaign is about solutions" and over-the-top demagoguery, "not speeches."

The biggest fear that tonight portends for superdelegates is that, say, a 40-point win in West Virginia will get Hillary all worked up again, and back she'll go into the party-wedging land of Obama-bashing. That remains to be seen, but as WaPo's Chris Cillizza told MSNBC yesterday, a sizable chunk of undeclared supers have informed Clinton that they're willing to announce for Obama immediately should she revert to hard negativity. So, in effect, she's muzzled by her own would-be allies, would-be in the sense that they're open minded only if Obama implodes -- or gets hit by lightening. And Ben Smith of The Politico helpfully reports that according to the National Weather Service "there’s a 1 in 2.8 million chance [of that] ... in the next three months."

For me, at least, the most intriguing reporting on Hillary's quixotic scheming came from Kenneth Vogel [3], also of The Politico. 

The legions of Hillary Rodham Clinton backers still investing their cash, energy and emotion into her faltering bid for the Democratic presidential nomination seem driven not by the reasonable expectation that she can beat Barack Obama, but by the emotional desire to see her through to the end of voting and stick it to those who have already written her off. Clinton’s campaign is fanning the flames of that backlash -- against the media, against superdelegates who recently backed Obama and against Obama himself. Aides hope to convert the sentiments into protest votes that could deliver landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, Clinton strongholds that are among the next three states to cast ballots.

Hence, assuming that Vogel's own admitted speculation is correct, Hillary's remaining supporters are, in fact, far more realistic in their expectations than Hillary is. They merely want to fly the finger at those they feel have been disrespectfully victorious, while the Clinton machine clings to some vague, risible hope that a state-full of impotent protest votes can indeed be rendered threatening.

In short, Hillary's supporters believe their final efforts are mostly or only about mass unfairness and striking a blow against it, while Hillary herself continues to believe it's all about her.

But, if I may, it is, at long last, time for Hillary's rather expansive bloc of dedicated supporters to expand their realistic thinking to the fullest. Because for most of her diehard opponents, this was certainly never about Hillary per se and most decidedly never about exploiting whatever cultural unfairness may have indeed existed. It was, rather, about a vote, a singular vote: an Iraq war vote.

Sexism had nothing to do with it; polishing some perceived glass ceiling had nothing to do with it; falling in wild partisan love with an upstart, virtual unknown from Chicago had nothing to do with it; nor did lampooned rumors of sniper fire or campaign mismanagement or last-ditch demagoguery or anything else so commonly floated.

It was, rather, since Iowa -- which was the first and in many respects the final game-changer -- fundamentally about a progressive revulsion against any politician so callous as to trade human lives for mere political advantage. For Hillary, her Corleone-like prowar vote was nothing personal; it was just business. Fine. But in turn, for the vast majority of those who opposed her then and oppose her now, the same can be said: this was, and is, nothing personal toward Hillary. It's just the proper business of progressive politics.

And for those still behind Hillary who are thinking of staying at home in November, just remember that that, in effect, is a vote for yet another neocon pol itching for yet another neocon war. It would be like casting a prowar vote yourself.