The answer: it depends. It depends on how you count superdelegates. You may have noticed that almost every news organization has a different tally. Many are reporting that Obama has taken the lead, primarily based upon the reports out of ABC and the tendency of people leaning towards Obama to favor the first report to say so. But not everyone is in agreement.

As of this moment, CNN has Clinton ahead by four, 272 to 268. Fox has Hillary retaining a lead at 271.5 to 267. The AP has it close, with Clinton at 272.5 to Obama’s 271. USAToday has Clinton ahead by a hair, 271.5 to 271, a count which MSNBC agrees with. CBS has a slightly larger lead for Clinton–271 to 270.

The New York Times just tipped from one to the other, with Obama taking the lead 265 to 264. The Politico has Obama with a wider lead, 271 to 207.5. But ABC was the first to give Obama the lead, now counting his delegates at 267 versus Hillary’s 265.

You might think that such a count would be straightforward, with superdelegates either being for one candidate or not, but apparently it’s not so simple. The Politico ran a story explaining why about a month ago. Apparently, each news organization has different rules about who to count and who not to. First, everyone seems to have different sources; some rely on claims by the campaigns, others do not. It is up to each news office to decide whether to count only official announcements, which leaners to take how seriously, whose word to take, or what technicalities to observe. For example, one superdelegate voiced support for Obama, but had to take it back because of state party rules; the NY Times doesn’t count her, but the Politico does.

You might also wonder how candidates can have half a delegate, as many tallies show; this is because of Democrats Abroad, who have eight supers, but each only counts as half a delegate. That’s where those halves come from.

Only one thing seems for sure: as Obama picks up close to a dozen superdelegates in just a day or two, while Hillary gained one while having another switch to Obama, it seems pretty inevitable that within a day or two, everyone will have Obama in the lead. And with that in Obama’s column, Hillary has pretty much nothing left. Obama has pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, the most states won, so forth and so on.

The only way Hillary can claim the lead in any way is by using baseball stats–you know, where announcers tell you that a player leads the league in triples scored in away games when it’s raining and the opposing team is wearing their white shoes. Hillary sent out a PowerPoint presentation saying that she’s ahead in winning “competitive” districts, in other words, 20 districts where freshmen Democrats won elections in Republican-leaning areas. That’s spiffy and all that, but when you get to such specific breakdowns, you could probably make a convincing argument that John Edwards should get the superdelegates’ votes. It’s just playing with the numbers.

A lot of people not only figure Hillary will not give up, but that she should stay in the race–provided that she tones down the mudslinging and becomes as civilized and conciliatory as Obama has become.

Clearly, Hillary is having none of that. Not only has she sent out that presentation, she made a claim that has made more than a few people upset–that AP exit polls “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Aside from the unfortunate wording that makes her sound like she’s saying that black Americans are not hard-working, there remains the fact that she is emphasizing racial lines, and doing so selectively, and in a divisive way. I mean, really, whites in Indiana and North Carolina who had not completed college were edging in her direction? The numerical consequence of such a swing is insignificant considering the difference between party and general elections taking place six months apart; it’s almost like she’s trying more to draw Obama or his supporters into making “hillbilly” comments than actually making a case that she deserves to win.

Update: In Kentucky, Clinton goes on about how Obama is unelectable, that he will lose to McCain, and that he is disregarding the people of that state and others like it.

However you slice it, Hillary is not changing her tactics, and more and more people have got to be wondering: what is her end game here? The most conspiracy-theory minded have Hillary intentionally throwing the election to McCain so she can retain party control and have a shot at winning in 2012; the more charitably-minded simply say that she’s got nothing to lose, that an argument could be made for promoting party registration and that while she may not win, she still has a chance if Obama does anything between now and the convention to make him unelectable. An incredibly long shot, at best, but personally, she has little if anything to lose.

Then there is the negotiation theory: that Hillary is trying to angle herself, if not for the nomination, then for the best consolation prize she can get. Many say she wants the VP slot (perhaps with other concessions, like say over cabinet appointments), giving her influence and a guaranteed shot at the 2016 race (she’d be 69 then, however); others think she wants a top party leadership spot; many believe she is holding out for Obama to pay off not only her campaign debt, but the $11 million she and Bill spent on the campaign as well.

Obama has rather clearly switched to the high road here, saying only nice and/or respectful stuff about Hillary, focusing his criticism on McCain, and otherwise acting the part of the party nominee without making that actual claim.

What happens next? Stay tuned.