Everyone sees doom for Hillary

UPDATE: Will she fight on? Ben Smith:

A Clinton donor tells me that on a conference call . . . with major fundraisers this afternoon, Harold Ickes told them Clinton isn't planning to drop out. . . .
I've obtained a draft of the Illinois finance committee's letter, being circulated by a Clinton fundraising aide, Rafi Jafri, which stresses a fight until the convention, and a resolution in "August, and no earlier."

Never underestimate the Clintons.

PREVIOUSLY: James Antle, Allahpundit, Malkin -- everybody is eager to see that wormwood stake driven through her heart.

I don't know. People have been predicting the end for Hillary ever since Super Tuesday, and yet she keeps going. I've covered her campaign for The American Spectator -- actually had a brief chat with Chelsea in West Virginia -- and so I'm not necessarily objective.

A reporter always has an emotional investment in the story he's covering. You want to believe that what you're reporting is an important story, and if the Clinton campaign was hopeless and pointless, then it wasn't important, was it? So the notion that Hillary might somehow pull off a miracle comeback is appealing, even if it is completely irrational.

Still, as I've been saying for more than two months, Hillary might lose, but she won't quit. Even if she lays off her campaign staff, I don't expect her to concede and release her delegates. She'll at least insist on a first-ballot vote in Denver, and I expect her to try every little behind-the-scenes trick at her disposal.

My Spectator coverage of Hillary's campaign:

• March 26: Fourth and Long for Hillary
• April 22: Madame President?
• May 8: Rear-Guard Action
• May 19: Hoarse Race
• June 2: Crone Wars

I would argue, by the way, that those who are crowing over the apparent collapse of the Clinton campaign have their own biases. Last year, when the Democratic primaries looked like a coronation ceremony for Queen Hillary, a lot of people started hoping she could be beat. Then, after Iowa and Super Tuesday, they started predicting that, in fact, she already had been beaten. (The spate of "it's over" columns in March were of this ilk.)

Since her final defeat would be the fulfillment of their hopes and predictions, these people had a bias toward bad news for Hillary. It wasn't a political bias, really -- there's not a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama, issue-wise -- so much as it was the very common human desire to see the underdog upset the reigning champ.

Every time I went out to cover Hillary on the campaign trail, I'd talk with other reporters. None of them gave her a chance of winning, and they turned every press conference into a game of who could find the most novel way of re-phrasing the question: "Hey, Hillary, when are you going to admit that you've lost?"

One more point: Obama's appeal to youth impacted the press coverage. A lot of younger reporters especially seemed to have it in for Hillary -- it was like some kind of Freudian mother-hatred thing.

Assuming that Obama actually gets the nomination (and hey, anything can happen in June, right?) the general-election campaign will occur under a shadow of "what if?" Should Obama lose, the liberals in the MSM will be left to wonder what might have happened if they hadn't been so willing to participate in the Hillary takedown. If Obama wins, those conservatives who gloated over Hillary's downfall will have cause for remorse.