In the context of the Clinton campaign’s opposition research that produced kindergarten missives by Mr. Obama, what else might they have on Mr. Obama? The question gains momentum when looking back on prior and current Clinton tactics with opponents.

Supposing that opposition research has come up with “more stuff” on Mr. Obama, Hillary has a problem. The problem is fingerprints, during an active campaign the “more stuff ” cannot have Hillary’s fingerprints on what ever the “more stuff” might be. Add to that the now predictable reactions by the Obama wing of the media establishment to even minor criticisms and difficult questions, further add the ever present possibility of being charged with racism and Hillary, while possibly having “more stuff”, can’t use it while the campaign lingers on. That does not, however,  mean she can’t use it at all.

If Mrs. Clinton hangs on through the primaries, win or lose we eventually reach the down time between the last primary and the convention. What if the “more stuff” surfaces then? It’s too late for primary voters to be influenced positively or negatively, they’ve already voted.  The super delegates maintain the option to change their minds up until the final bell. Public opinion could create a wave of discontent entering the convention. The unfortunate reality is that subtle, camouflaged racism still exists and many voters may be looking for some reason not to support Mr. Obama. Super delegates will become more concerned with the general election than with Mr. Obama’s charisma. Faced with the potential choice of a guaranteed defeat with Mr. Obama or a fighting chance with Hillary they’ll take the fighting chance.

This scenario is, of course, predicated on the presence of “more stuff”.   If the Clinton campaign worked Mr. Obama back to kindergarten, it’s reasonable to assume they knew about Reverend Wright, and William Ayres. It is therefore reasonable to assume there could be “more stuff”. The fact that conservative media is all over these issues does not necessarily mean they uncovered it or exposed it. A tip could come from anywhere. Was there an identification of who actually posted Reverend Wright’s sermon on YouTube?  That could be telling, but our crack population of investigative journalists has apparently not gone there.

Mr. Obama, wisely, in his book preemptively confesses to prior questionable behaviors and indiscretions. Did he cover them all; is there more? If there is, we will have to wait until June and the completion of the final primary to hear about it.

Does anyone question the Clinton instinct to do whatever it takes to win? Despite charisma, change and energized new young voters the final verdict could be the result of politics as usual. Who plays that game better? 

From the Clinton perspective it may not be about Florida and Michigan. Those issues could be no more than a red herring to buy the necessary amount of time to get to June and the “stuff”.  It just might explain why Hillary won’t quit.