After tonight even the "get the pledged delegate lead down to 100 and let the Superdelegates do the rest" scenario is implausible. Since March. Hillary hasn't been racing Obama, she's been racing the finish line ... and losing.

After tonight Obama has netted somewhere around 10 pledged delegates. This will put his pledged delegate lead in the area of 168.

This is the rest of the calendar:

West Virginia: 28 delegates

Kentucky: 51 delegates

Oregon: 52 delegates

Puerto Rico: 55 delegates

Montana: 16 delegates

South Dakota: 15 delegates

Looking at it I'm not sure Hillary would even whittle his lead to 150 pledged delegates.

I'd bet she wins West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama has done poorly in the Appalacia regions and those two states are the center of that region.

Obama will get Oregon. Look at the results of the surrounding states. As far as politics go, Oregon and Washington tend to hew together.

I don't know about Puerto Rico. Clinton like to play up her strengths with the Latino community, but lumping Puerto Ricans with Latinos from Texas is like lumping Ireland and Greece together because they are both European.

Montana and South Dakota will likely break for Obama. Maybe things have changed drastically since February, but Hillary has had a real Mountain states problem.

So I expect a 3/3 split in the remaining contests with Kentucky/W. Virginia being negated by Oregon, Montana, and S. Dakota. So if Hillary nets anything it will be whatever she nets from the 55 delegates from PR.

After the nearly 200,000 net votes he received tonight, Hillary won't beat Obama in the popular vote. Even counting Florida (and probably Michigan).

He has won far more states and contests.

So what metric does Hillary have to convince Supers to go against the voters and choose her? Electability? Never mind the nebulous nature of the term, there is no way to measure electability this far away from the general election. Don't forget John Kerry was supposed to be more electable than Howard Dean. The polls have been changing week to week, sometimes day to day. It doesn't make sense to choose a nominee based on a poll one week when the polls could say something entirely different the next week.

I'm not saying Hillary should drop out. I am saying from this point out she really needs to choose her campaign strategies carefully. She has to look in the mirror and ask herself if it is worth doing everything possible to destroy a rising star in the party just to mantain the barest of chances of getting the nomination. For the sake of the country I hope she decides that she will take her chances with just running on her ideas and if she doesn't get the nomination so be it. Make the last month a dialogue on ideas for running this country and not about latching onto any gaffe the Obama campaign makes.

This process has been great for organizing Democrats, running elections, and practicing GOTV efforts in every state. We've been able to strong networks in every state. It would be a shame to lose those gains due to one candidate adopting a "win at any cost" attitude. We aren't going to beat the Republicans by playing their game. Republicans are better at being Republicans than Democrats are. We need to play the game on our terms.

A handful of ads on CNN is not the same as campaigning in a state. The margin in Florida would have been different if Obama has been able to utilize his strengths: rallies, organizing, and GOTV efforts. I know the difference may be lost on people whose candidate was running a top down campaign.

It never fails to astonish me that Clinton supporters, whose candidate was First Lady for two terms and the two term Senator from New York (or "where I lived before I retired" as Floridians refer to it), cry foul that Obama ran _Nation Wide_ advertisements on a National Cable Channel in an attempt to raise his name recognition prior to Super Tuesday and didn't make Herculean efforts to have them blocked from cable subscribers in Miami.

Stop crying. This nominating contest was Hillary's to lose right from the start. Her biggest booster was a popular two term president. She had hundreds of millionare Hillraisers to fuel her campaign. She should have walked away with the nomination if she was really as qualified for the job as she would like us to believe.

Shouldn't Hillary have won both NC and Indiana hands down?

I also think it is reach to say that voters in Indiana and North Carolina represent the whole Democratic electorate. The really only reflect the Indiana and North Carolina electorate.

Hillary's margin with white voters in those two states is just about the amount of people who admit in public that race was a factor in their voting. The same people who wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general.

Does anyone really think there is a massive union in a Venn Diagram of "People who wouldn't vote for an African American" and "People who would vote for a woman"?

It is possible that the different outcomes between the Hawaii and Guam voters is because, and this may surprise some people, there were different people voting. It is funny how keep trying to draw trend lines from contest to contest. Like white people from Wisconsin gave direction to white people from Ohio.

As for electability, there is no objective measure to say that Obama would lose to McCain and Hillary wouldn't. The best way to prove your a winner is to win and Obama has won more than Hillary. More pledged delegates, more states, and more votes.

Hillary opposed the gas tax holiday being proposed by Rick Lazlo.

Now that we know both candidates switched positions since 2000, maybe we can go back to talking about the merits of the gas tax holiday plans?