What's going on?

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Shortly following the news, a great hue and cry went up from the pundits and bloggers.

On the one hand, there are those (mostly Obama supporters, it seems) who claim that Clinton's dogged insistence on staying in the race and use of negative tactics against Obama will have dire consequences for whichever Democrat ends up running in the general election (although, the maths suggest it won't be Clinton).

On the other hand, there are those (mostly Clinton supporters, it seems) who claim that Clinton's comeback in yesterday's primaries was a case of the voters having their say despite what the pundits were trying to tell us to do. Much like what happened with McCain's campaign after it had been pronounced dead at the end of last year.

Or maybe it's all part of the right-wing talk radio pundit conspiracy.

So which is it? Is Clinton sabotaging the Democrat's chance of re-taking the White House come November, or is she simply fighting the good fight?

Me, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am not a fan of the underhanded tactics that the Clinton campaign has employed, nor am I a fan of the media trying to tell us who's had it and who we're likely to vote for. I enjoy the fact that this primary contest has been so fierce and not decided by the first few states to vote, but I do worry that, if it goes on much longer, it will eat into the Dem's time to formulate a strong campaign against the Republicans, whose nominee is now decided (even if a lot of them don't like him).

And of course, there's also the specter of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, to which Hillary herself has now given some credence. If that is to be the case, is all of the heavy-handed bashing such a good idea after all?

I'm curious to hear opinions on this, so please feel free to have your say in the comments.