Sure, Democratic presidential supporters feel like they've been there for ages--and for good reason. But the National Journal's Charlie Cook argues that Hillary Clinton is really the one in limbo:

If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He's also getting rattled a bit, and he didn't perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places, but it's happening about three months too late.

At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing.

Meanwhile, David Broder is less bearish on Clinton--but more so on the Democratic prospects for "unity":

But now all the worried Democrats can see are more and more first-time voters who will be frustrated and angry if their candidate is counted out in a process they neither sanctioned nor really understand.

For Clinton to win, the superdelegates would have to overrule the millions of voters who have flocked to Obama, including thousands of young people and African Americans, to whom he represents a fresh hope for the future.

But as political pros, many of whom will be on the November ballot themselves, the superdelegates cannot ignore what Clinton achieved in winning such major electoral prizes as California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania...

But how does anyone persuade the first serious African American candidate, the leader in every relevant measure of popular support, to abandon a historic candidacy?

And how does anyone persuade the first serious female candidate, the possessor of the best brand name in Democratic politics, and a politician who has battled back from seeming defeat at least three times already, that she should quit?

"Best brand name in Democratic politics" is certainly debatable. The nail-biting going on in Democratic ranks is certainly not.