Obama is ahead. Clinton needs the race to change radically. Therefore, every contest that does not provide an unexpected result favors him by narrowing the opportunities for her to do this.

Worst case is Hillary tries to hang on in the hopes of an upset in Oregon, which would be the absolute, positive last opportunity for her to stop him. Assuming we don't see the hypothetical "live boy-scout/dead woman" scenario in the Obama campaign, I suspect enough S-Ds will move to Obama after next Tuesday to effective nullify that primary.

I respect Chris Bowers more than just about anyone in the blogosphere.  Here's what he thinks about all this:

Annoying Result
The most likely outcome now appears to be the most annoying outcome. Clinton will probably win Indiana narrowly, by 4-5%, and pick up either two or four delegates in the process. Obama will probably win North Carolina by single digits, and pick up nine delegates or so. Overall, this will give Clinton the CW justification to keep going, even though Obama will net delegates on the night, and in fact have netted pledged delegates from March 4th through May 6th. Further, the Obama margins will be close enough that the Clinton camp will claim they lead in the popular vote, even though that just isn't true

I would prefer a sweep by one candidate or the other on May 6th, which would serve as a pretty severe blow no matter who landed it. This is particularly the case for Obama, since he is winning and because the established media is basically demanding a Clinton Indiana victory in order for them to keep covering her seriously. However, if Clinton sweeps North Carolina, it is going to be a pretty bad stretch for him coming up, and with only negative momentum. If he loses North Carolina, it is possible he will lose every single state the rest of the way, which will cause real problems for him in winning the nomination. If Clinton sweeps the rest of the states, look for her to start performing much, much better against McCain than Obama, and possibly for some superdelegate defections.

It could be that North Carolina is a firewall state for Obama, and Indiana is a firewall state for Clinton. Then again, since nothing else has been decisive so far, why should those two sates be?

I agree with him that should the results be different than expected (Clinton winning NC, or Obama winning Indiana) it will change things and could be a severe blow for one candidate or the other. So, yes, a sweep by either candidate would provide more clarity, but if the split occurs along expected lines, it will not be as muddled as it is today.

The fact is that super-dels will decide this thing. The only question is when. Dean, Gore, Pelosi and the other pooh-bahs of the party have clearly signaled it will be before the convention. If, as Bowers contends, NC and IN are both firewalls, and both hold, then what is left for super-dels to wait for? I submit nothing, and we'll see them start to declare.

My sense is that absent some compelling reason, most super-dels would not vote contrary to the primary/caucus results, and there is no compelling reason for them to do so.

Once Obama has the votes, she will not stay in the race because it will not be in her interest to do so. The question will be defining the terms on which she will leave.

There is a part of me that feels Obama is beyond all of this.  He is too honest and good of person to run for President when all the media and many voters care about are inconsequential subject matters that Obama is not directly responsible for such as Rev. Wright.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be a divisive and contemptible candidate.  She knows how to play the game and play it well.  That is not something to be proud of, however.  I cannot play nice anymore.  I cannot sugar coat things and say "well Hillary's better than John McCain" or "she would be an excellent President."  It's not that I don't want to, it's because I can't convince myself of it any longer.

This whole campaign has really shown me how nasty and dirty politics are.  I think all Americans need to take a hard look at themselves and ask if they are part of the problem.  Candidates would not engage in smear campaigns if it didn't work.  It wouldn't work if American voters didn't reward the behavior by voting for the candidates who try to destroy another's character.  So long as we continue to reward this type of behavior, we will NEVER get anything different from what we have already seen.  

The media is scripted and owned by the VERY wealthy. Most very rich people just live on contempt for the rest of us and they want to make sure they can buy those who win the elections.

Its all very simple though a bit Orwellian. If we want to change this we need a president who will split up the media monopolies and the other monopolies. We need more local access to media and we need forced disclosure of the media's journalistic standards. That way we can classify many of the networks honestly, as cartoons instead of news networks.

This is likely going to the convention.  I wanted Edwards to continue on when he dropped out so that he could have more of a swing.

That didn't happen.  Even so, the race is so tight that John Edwards small amount of delegates could make the difference.  I believe that Super Delegates who pledged to support Edwards can go wherever they want.  But, regular delegates as I understand it are compelled to follow the direction of Edwards.

I think that Edwards leans Obama - but he supports Clinton's healthcare plan.  

Does anyone else think that Edwards still matters in this race, and if so how much?