Well, it looks like tonight might finally be end of the line for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Yes, yes, I suppose pixie dust could coat the superdelegats and win the nomination for Hillary, but her real problem is the new media line that it's finally over. She can't overcome that. The media's willingness to play along with her implausible argument that she could still win is the only thing that's kept it going this long.

I have mixed feelings. I voted for her and think she would have made a good president. Although many of her problems on the trail were of her (and her husband's) own making, I think she was treated unfairly at times. She tended to exaggerate the magnitude of the foul blows (in sports, they call this "flopping," and it's as reviled as it is in politics), but that doesn't change that some foul blows were struck.

Her obvious desperation to win shone through in ugly ways. But my sense is that she sincerely believes she has a better chance at beating John McCain than Barack Obama does. If she really thinks that, it's her duty to run as hard against him as the GOP will. (And McCain's noble sentiments aside, this race will get nasty.)

But now what? Has she crippled Obama's chances by pointing out his flaws so well over the last several months? As I said recently, I don't think so. But it would help a lot if, when she eventually endorses him, she affects some humility and apologizes if she went too far. She might not want to come right out and say, "At first, I didn't think he was qualified to be president, but if he can beat me, he can do anything!" But she can figure out a way to get that message across. She should do whatever she can to get the voters who supported her to support him. That will be sufficient penance, I'd think.

And after November, whither Hillary? If Obama loses, she will surely think about running in 2012, but maybe her window has closed. Either way, I think what she ought to do is act as if she'll never run for president again. I think her role model should be fellow senators Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden. Those men ran for president, failed to get the nomination, and instead devoted their careers to significant legislative accomplishments.

Hillary can do the same thing. She can become chair on an important committee. Maybe she'll even run for Democratic leader one day. It's not like the press will ever quit covering her, and even if the national media abandons her, her constituents in the New York media are loud enough.

Transforming into a real legislator serves Hillary's interests either way -- if she decides to run for president again, she'll have a library of tangible results to point to; if not, it's still an admirable legacy and it keeps her relevant and in the arena. (I'm sure some will say it's evidence that the executive office is a masculine domain and the legislative branch more suited for women, but that's for another day.) In any event, I think Hillary can be a great senator if she wants to be, and that would be my advice for her.

And now the news cycle will spin a few times on "What went wrong for Hillary?", but pretty soon it will come around to nominee Obama. So what's next for him? Time to pick a running mate yet? I'll have a post soon about vice-presidents, so feel free to offer your suggestions in the comments. Obama-____?

UPDATE: What she said. I think I'm in agreement with Erica Barnett here and here and here on how I'm feeling about the end of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Prof. Berman had this post last week noting a Ninth Circuit opinion dealing with some sentencing aspects of a dirty pictures case. There were a few things I found interesting.

First, one of the defendant's conditions of supervised release was that he undergo Abel testing. As the opinion describes it, Abel testing involves showing the subject pictures and asking the subject to rate how arousing they are. The subject is supposed to think the test is actually seeking his numerical grades, when in fact it measures how long the subject stares at the pictures.

I don't think I'm letting the cat out of the bag here. A quick googling turns up lots of discussion on how to "beat" the Abel test. And there's this this New York Times Magazine piece about sex offenders that also revealed the twist. And, let me repeat, the big secret behind the test is right there in the opinion, handily set off as a block quote on page 20 of the pdf. No wonder the opinions notes the test's error rate ranges "from poor to appalling." (The Times Magazine article says "the Abel Assessment is widely considered a strong diagnostic tool.")

This all reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George coaches Jerry on how to beat a lie detector test: "It's not a lie...if you believe it."

I guess there's not much use to challenging this test as a condition of one's supervision if the opinion affirming it tells you how to get around it. Maybe the court thinks the defendant won't read it. Still, it does seem to undermine the efficacy of the test (assuming it's effective on a subject who doesn't know how it works). Maybe that was the idea, in which case I guess there's not a lot of harm in approving it as a condition of treatment. Then again, the guy got a 12+ years sentence, so maybe by the time he is actually out on supervised release, they will have figured out whether the test really works or not.

Second, the defendant in this case used to be involved with the troupe Up With People. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that...but it did jump out at me.

Finally, you know you're not going to win on a claim the court describes this way: "Stoterau's appeal raises the following five general issues, which we discuss in turn: ...(5) whether this disposition should be filed under seal or alternatively, whether we should identify Stoterau by a pseudonym in place of his true name."

I think CNN is trying to set the record for consecutive days with the word "incest" on its front page. Good grief.