Despite recent rumors to the contrary, Hillary Clinton has no reason to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination.

While it is true that no practical prediction of the remaining contests can be configured to find her arriving at the convention with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama, her totals remain close to his. And, due to the large number of party officials, honoraries, and officeholders who are default "super delegates," it is quite unlikely Obama could amass the 2,025 delegates required to win the nomination in the rest of the schedule, either. In fact, his delegate lead is more due to the fact that Clinton didn't organize and contest several of the smaller "red" states, where many held caucuses instead of primaries, than to any great groundswell of support.

Obama and Clinton both would need the votes of "super delegates" to forge the necessary majority of convention delegates; it is most probable that either will need several hundred of them.

This is why you may be hearing ominous speculation from some Obama supporters if the super delegates don't vote just as the pledged delegates are apportioned. Former Virginia Governor (and current Richmond Mayor) Douglas Wilder predicted "chaos" in such a case. But why would the super delegates necessarily do that?

They were put into the process to add their own wisdom and experience to the selection of the nominee (and other convention business, of course, of less import). If they were only going to blindly vote as the primary voters did, or their state did, or their congressional district did (and it makes a huge difference which "popular vote" they follow), their statesmanship would be unneeded, wouldn't it? If the Party had wanted the "super delegate" votes to be apportioned in such a manner, a rule to that effect could have been adopted at any time - the "super delegates" have been around since 1980. Yet, no such rule has ever been formally proposed . . .

Those who insist Hillary should quit now, or soon, generally fall into one of three categories: they may be 1) Obama supporters like my colleague Larkin hoping to clinch the nomination early, 2) pundits like Jonathan Alter who wish to be seen as ahead of the curve of political trends, or 3) pundits like Bob Novak who can finally take personal satisfaction in the political misfortunes of a Clinton.

Now, if Hillary were to lose two out of three of the big states Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the math could change. But narrow wins in two of three, and continuing to run close in the other states, could keep her within possible striking distance at the convention. Plus, it is three and one-half months away. Who knows what may happen between now and then? It's a lifetime in American politics. Why, that long ago was before Thanksgiving, and Hillary still looked "inevitable" to most observers.