Two articles were just published on the NYT site from tomorrow's edition. One chronicles how some friends have been leaving the Clintons in their time of need, and why they are doing it. To me the key quote is:
But there is something more wrenching at work as well, a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party.
Another article chronicles the money problem Clinton's campaign has run into, highlighting the fact that, as so many of us knew, the old way of raising money would inevitably run into a roadblock once big donors are maxed out:
But her big-dollar fund-raising apparatus that was once the envy of the political world is encountering obstacles as many of those in its regular networks of donors have reached the maximum on their personal contributions or grown tired of the relentless press for donations.
The first article goes so far as to classify the various tiers of "disloyal" offenders to the Clintons (as the campaign itself sees it - how childish is that?):
People within the Clinton orbit say there are a varying gradations of perceived disloyalty. In their eyes, the least offensive (if somewhat annoying) group are “likely” Hillary Clinton supporters who have not defected, in part out of recognition of past ties, but have not made public commitments to her, either. Until Friday, this would have included Mr. Reich, who had said he would not formally endorse Mr. Obama out of “loyalty” to Mrs. Clinton, a friend for over four decades whom he actually went out on a date with in their college days.
Next:
Then there are those whom Mrs. Clinton worked hard to win over but who have actually taken the step of endorsing Mr. Obama. These would include newer senators like Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, or older colleagues, like Senator John D. Rockefeller, of West Virginia.
Last but not least:
But the worst offenders, associates say, are former Clintonites who not only endorse Obama, but who also publicly criticize Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as they do so. Mr. Craig, a former law school classmate of Mrs. Clinton’s, became a charter member of this club when he wondered aloud (to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek) “if Hillary’s campaign can’t control Bill, whether Hillary’s White House could.”
Mr. Richardson moved instantly atop the blacklist after he endorsed Mr. Obama and then took the added step of saying that people around the Clintons practiced “gutter” politics and that they felt entitled to the presidency. He was tarred as “Judas” in The New York Times by James Carville, still a fierce defender of the Clintons.
Lest there be any doubt as to the courage it took Richardson to endorse Obama...
Articles like this - showing the Clinton campaign engaging in childish "classification" of degrees of disloyalty, and showing their difficulty raising money - certainly will do them no favors among Super Delegates. Nor should it.