Adam Boulton cautions against the conventional wisdom that Obama has this sewn up. He outlines Clinton's two-pronged strategy: first, hammering home to superdelegates that she is the safer bet in a battle with McCain, based on current polling evidence. Second, challenging the legitimacy of the whole primary process to date (Adam says the Clinton team is drawing up a legal challenge to this effect).
I'm all for unconventional wisdom, but I think Adam's reading of the Clinton strategy is wrong. Even these most ferocious of fighters know the game is up. Do they really envisage a path to the nomination that includes a legal battle with the party, and the savage internecine warfare that would result from an attempt to overthrow the presumptive nominee? I don't think so: the Clintons know that if they lost this battle, as they almost certainly would, both of their reputations would be destroyed in the party for good. Her political future would be over.
No, I think the Clintons are using the two prongs Adam identifies to frame a possible 2012 bid. First, they want everyone to be absolutely clear that We told you so when/if Obama loses to McCain in November. Second, they want the party to change the rules for electing nominees - eliminating caucuses - so that Clinton has a better chance of winning in 2012 (when she might even be up against Obama again).