Time for Clinton to close up shop?

First, her campaign is essentially broke.

Despite a strong month of fund-raising in February in which she brought in $35 million, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished the month essentially in the red, once her campaign’s outstanding debts are factored in, as well as her personal loan, according to filings submitted late last night to the Federal Election Commission.

After spending about $31 million in her efforts to keep up with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton finished February with more than $33 million in cash on hand, but $21.5 million of that is earmarked exclusively for the general election, leaving her with $11.7 million for the primary.

Mrs. Clinton, however, loaned her campaign $5 million earlier this year and she listed $8.7 million in debts to various vendors, making clear why she has not yet paid herself back from her loan.

Well, it’s true that political debtors often know they’re going to have to settle for dimes on the dollar, but they don’t face that settling until the end of the election cycle.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama has more than $31 million on hand, and with almost no debt.

Clinton could spend every dollar she has on Pennsylvania and Obama could double here and then still drop almost $9 million on North Carolina.

And, the nearly dry well can’t impress the still-wavering superdelegates. But Bill Richardson’s Obama endorsement can.

Second, the mathematics of the matter are that she can’t win.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

The Politico story then goes into analytical details:

et’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

And, the Politico story was written before a Michigan revote possibility died stillborn.

At best realistic case, Clinton would be about 100 delegates behind, with 261 superdelegates unpledged as of this time and 71 still to be named.

Clinton would have to get a 2-1 break, like 216-116, to make up ground of 100 delegates from superdelegates.

That ignores that recently pledging supers have been breaking more for Obama, that Richardson’s endorsement will swing some, and, above all…

That Hillary’s scheduling logs as First Lady showed her strong and active support for NAFTA. We still have weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, but, even if she does win, it can’t be by more than 55-45. And, I wouldn’t give you more than 60-40 odds of that, even.

And, excluding Florida, Michigan and caucus states, Obama has a 700,000 vote edge in the popular vote. Out of an expected 12 million voters in remaining Democratic primaries, Clinton would have to get a 6.4 million-5.6 million edge to win them, or 53-47 percent. I don’t see it happening, which strips the “primary vote winner” argument away as a possibility to sway superdelegates.

Clinton will of course not give up before Pennsylvania.

Should my prediction be right, she should give up after that. But she won’t.