Clinton's non-concession concession?

The debate rages over whether Hillary will concede tonight.

It appears that the confusion may turn on what the meaning of "is" "concession" is, as Politico's Ben Smith explains:

This morning's report that Clinton would "concede" that she's lost the delegate race -- and the campaign's subsequent denial that she's conceding the nomination -- triggered wide confusion.  

But Clinton herself explained her position yesterday in Yankton, SD yesterday:

"Tomorrow is the last day of the primaries and the beginning of a new phase in the campaign. After South Dakota and Montana vote I will lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama will lead in the delegate count," she said. "The voters will have voted and so the decision will fall to the delegates empowered to vote at the Democratic Convention. I will be spending the coming days making my case to those delegates. Their responsibility not only to the Democratic Party but to our country is to vote for the candidate who is best able to lead us to victory in November and best prepared to lead our country into the future."  

The theoretical case here is that -- even if Obama currently holds the absolute majority of convention delegates -- the delegates can't cast their votes until August, and could change their minds.

So in theory, Clinton can concede that Obama -- presently -- has the majority, but maintain that he doesn't have the nomination.  

In practice, she's pretty much out of options: He's on the verge of locking up the majority, and a bandwagon effect -- which has already begun to pull on her supporters -- will only intensify.

But as Clinton choreographs her defeat, she's outlined a two-step: First conceding that Obama's won the delegate race, then that he's won the nomination.

That makes sense in theory, but as Smith says, it falls apart in practice, unless her intention is to take the fight to Denver.

If she doesn't concede -- and I mean fully concede -- very quickly after it becomes clear that Obama has wrapped up a clear delegate majority, there is no logical point until the convention at which it will make sense for her to fully and finally concede.

Moreover, as I said earlier, the feisty rhetoric she'll inevitably use to justify her non-concession could create, perhaps unintentionally or half-intentionally, a sort of unstoppable rhetorical momentum that would make it nearly impossible for her to concede anytime before August 28 (the date of the roll call in Denver) without angering and alienating her supporters.

This is why I think the campaign either: a) ends this week (probably in the next 48 hours) or b) continues until August. And it's also why Harry Reid's plan -- telling superdelegates to wait a little longer -- is such a bad idea. This is no time for Obama's people to be delicate and deferential. They need to Clinton off the stage, now. This is their last, best chance to avoid a floor fight. It's now or never.

P.S. In comments, kcatnd quotes the Beatles:

If you don't take her out tonight
She's gonna change her mind
And I will take her out tonight
And I will treat her kind.

Heh. Indeed.

Kcatnd also speculates that Hillary will "bow out gracefully tonight once it's clear Obama has clinched it. Until then, it's still a 100%-absolutely-not-conceding tack." That's a distinct possibility. This all may be nothing but tough talk, both to influence Montana & South Dakota voters and to try and prevent the superdelegate flood that would allow Obama to hit the "magic number" tonight. If so, I hope it has the opposite effect. It will, if these Democratic party "leaders" have any sense at all. To quote from another song:

No other road
No other way
No day but today