West Virginia and Kentucky.  Slight (very slight) possibility that she breaks it in Puerto Rico.  She won't break 60% in Indiana.  And she'll still have a tough fight with Obama for Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.  And the superdelegates seem to be trickling Obama's way, not Clintons.  Is a nomination still possible for her?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.

please correct your typo in your title - "Contast?"  

Thank you.

Just for the heck of it:  polling numbers.

As of the most recent polls, despite all the hoopla, tomorrow's not going to change much of anything.

The six pollsters who did best in Pennsylvania were, in order of accuracy:

1) Quinnipiac
2) Suffolk
3) ARG
4) SurveyUSA
5) Zogby
6) Rasmussen

Quinnipiac isn't polling Indiana or North Carolina.  Suffolk is not polling North Carolina.

Indiana:  Clinton/Obama

1)  Quinnipiac  n/a
2)  Suffolk  49/43
3)  ARG  53/45
4)  SurveyUSA 54/42
5)  Zogby 44/42
6)  Rasmussen 46/41

North Carolina:  Clinton/Obama

1)  Quinnipiac  n/a
2)  Suffolk  n/a
3)  ARG  42/50
4)  SurveyUSA 45/50
5)  Zogby 40/48
6)  Rasmussen 40/49

The polling burst on North Carolina is tighter and therefore/maybe/perhaps is more accurate.  The low spread is 5 and the high spread is 9.  The average of the 4 pollsters polling North Carolina has Obama winning it by 7.5%.

But with Indiana, two of these six heretofore accurate pollsters are way off.  How can that be?  Zogby has a 2 point spread and SurveyUSA has a 12 point spread.   If those two outliers are thrown out, the three remaining spreads are 5, 6 and 8 for an average Indiana win by Clinton of 6.33%.

North Carolina has 115 pledged delegates and Indiana 72.

Based on the averages, Obama gets 62 delegates in North Carolina and 34 in Indiana.  Clinton gets 53 in North Carolina and 38 in Indiana.  (Yes, the Democratic rules for apportioning delegates are more arcane than this.)

So, for the day, Obama's haul will be 96 pledged delegates and Clinton 91 pledged delegates.

Net net:  Obama widens his lead by 5 pledged delegates.

This gas tax nonsense is obviously a pander. I think it is too bad, however, that when confronted with it, she didn't just take the easy way out and say, "Well, I just want to give people a little break, no matter how small it might seem. Let me tell you about my energy policy ....blah blah blah." Instead, as Kathy notes, she took the opportunity to to "create antipathy ... for academics and intellectuals."

I understand the rationale behind the tactic, given the polling and voting patterns, and before Ohio I would not have minded as much. Back then, when she had the possibility of capturing 60+ in Ohio and Pennsylvania, this race was very much up in the air, IMHO. Clinton still had a legitimate shot at winning.

Now, she does not, unless of course Obama is found in bed with the proverbial live boy or deal woman. So what if she breaks 60 points in Indiana, West Va. and Kentucky. None of those states figure in the Democratic path to victory, anyway.

And taking Kathy's math at face value, the probability that in the absence of some compelling scandal 60+ of the super-dels are going to break for her is practically nil.

If I were Clinton, I'd be planning my exit strategy right now to accomplish the following:

1. Maintain my viability as a presidential candidate in 2012 (should Obama lose) or in 2016, should he win, by doing everything possible to heal the rift in the Democratic party, and to elect Obama and other Democrats to office.

2. Promote my husband's legacy by doing everything I can to heal the rift in the Democratic party.

3. Do what I do best: raise money for Democratic candidates. In VA-05, for example.

4. If I can't see running for President again, figure out what I do want to do, because come Wednesday morning, I'm going to be in the best position I'll ever be in to choose my future.

as much class and dignity as you or the average American, she would do all of the things you suggested.  Unfortunately, Hillary has shown that she lacks both of those of those qualities.  It would not surprise me to see Hillary ride this thing out to the very end and then seat the Michigan and Florida delegates to take the nomination.

Aznew, I know this is your candidate and you believe in her, but I must admit I cannot stand her for what she has done to the Democratic Party.  She has manipulated the truth, distorted reality, attacked Obama's character, and worst of all (for me at least) she has exploited cultural and racial misunderstandings to score political points.  I believe that healing racial divisions and having valued character traits are far more important than winning an election.  I will not support a candidate who believes and/or behaves otherwise (especially with regard to the first point).  This is why I will not vote for John McCain.  It is why I have avoided MSNBC and CNN (don't watch Fox News anyway) as they sensationalize a story that could have profound implications for the state of race relations in this country.  This is why I cannot see myself voting for Hillary Clinton in November.

I know there are a lot of people out there who feel the same about Obama.  I know there are some who think I am being rash, stubborn, and counterproductive, but this is honestly how I feel.  I sincerely believe that if I vote for Hillary Clinton I will validate her tactics.  Through my vote, I feel I would be sending the message that it is acceptable to manipulate the electorate and exploit race divisions to win an election if I voted for Hillary.  I cannot compromise on my values this year.  I believe the American public has compromised a lot in the past and quite frankly I am not at all satisfied with the results.  

I just don't think her campaign has been particularly nasty, although because she is a Clinton, all her sins get either magnified or too easily excused.

Anyway, the time for that argument seems past to me (assuming no huge upset tonight). And my point was that we not depend upon Clinton's level of class or decency for her to do this stuff. Rather, it is in her self-interest to do it.

Torpedoing Obama in the general out of spite is not in Clinton's interest.

I think her campaign has been particularly nasty and it has little to do with the media and much more to do with Clinton's despicable tactics.  This is of course an subjective judgement that cannot be proven one way or the other.  You don't think Hillary has been "particularly nasty" because quite frankly you don't want to believe that.  I believe she has repulsive character flaws and is unworthy of the Democratic nomination let alone the presidency, but that is due in part because I am an Obama supporter. I must add, however, that even those who supported Hillary in the past agree with me including the New York Times (which endorsed her), some of her staff members, and even one of her top fundraisers.  Also, exit polls continue to show voters think she has unfairly attacked Obama.  This is even true in states where she is winning like Pennsylvania.  I really want to like Hillary Clinton, but I am finding it impossible in light of her campaign.  

if clinton is the nominee i think west virginia is absolutely in play. it is a state that is about as blue collar as it gets and i think she would have more appeal than mccain there. you are right in that if obama is the nominee W.Va. will not be a victory.  

but in he end, I think it is lost to the Democrats at the presidential level. Even if it is in play, I would think think it fits into the path to 270 for either Clinton or Obama, although it would, of course, be nice to have. But if the Dems are winning in WV they are winning in OH, and if the are winning in OH, they are winning the election, IMHO.

That said, you are right. Hillary would have a much greater chance of carrying the state than Obama.

Thanks for the transcript, which shows Senator Clinton in true modus operandi: Republican Lite. Notice the emphasis on elites over and over; the term, when used politically, is a Republican code word which Clinton (not McCain) first used against Obama not long ago, to her advantage, framing her opponent as a disconnected elitist---- pretty hard to do, considering his background, without the help of a complicit Murdoch-run media.

This performance clinches unsavory rumors I have heard: that the Clintons want so to weaken Obama that he may win the nomination but cannot win the election, enabling Clinton to return in the next cycle and win the whole enchilada.  Assuming, of course, that there   is another election, that she has not destroyed the Democratic Party with her shenanigans, that no other rival rises to frustrate her "entitlement" in the meantime, and that the Republicans do not select such a strong vice-president for McCain that he can succeed the aging flyboy President.  

The idea that Clinton thinks she can somehow weaken Obama enough that he will lose the general election, but be cagy enough or subtle enough that the party will fail to notice and nominate her in four years, is the stuff of political thrillers, not the real world.

If she really wants to have a shot at the presidency, she will work hard for Obama and set her sights of 2016, when she will be 69 or 70, or should Obama lose anyway, in 2012.  

for gas price relief...other than opposing this measure?

Obama has said repeatedly that he will call for a windfall tax on oil company profits to secure some relief, and also calls for a middle class tax cut that should relieve some of the stress on the middle class.

He's said this repeatedly.

that he can pass one for this summer.  Hillary is, but she has near-zero likelihood that she can deliver on it by summer.  Bush will not sign such a deal.  
So Obama supports a windfall profits tax(WPT), but in the long run.  Also Hillary spends the supposed gains from the WPT twice.

His website:

www.barackobama.com

But here's a little bit.

Obama: Economy and Energy

First what he would not do.  Obama would not use the short-term quick-fix Hillary proposes because she's spent the windfall profits tax already.  Furthermore, the approach would only yield apx $28 per household.  But it would end up hurting the transportation fund and therefore cost highway construction jobs-and needed road improvements.  AND, George W. Bush would never pass a windfall profits tax, so Hillary is posturing before the primaries.  See interview for more on this.

MR. RUSSERT:  Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?
SEN. OBAMA:  You're right, Tim, this defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton.  This gas tax, which was first proposed by John McCain and then quickly adopted by Senator Clinton, is a classic Washington gimmick.  It, it is a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades.  Now, here's, here's the upshot.  You're looking at suspending a gas tax for three months.  The average driver would save 30 cents per day for a grand total of $28.  That's assuming that the oil companies don't step in and raise prices by the same amount that the tax has been reduced.  And, by the way, I have some experience on this because in Illinois we tried this when I was in the state legislature, and that's exactly what happened.  The oil companies, the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting.
MR. RUSSERT:  You voted for it, too.
SEN. OBAMA:  I did.  Exactly.  And that...
MR. RUSSERT:  When gas was only $2 a gallon.

Obama said he learned about the unintended consequences of doing such.

Now he would:
--use a general economic stimulus package, including a middle class, tax cut to better assist the middle class.
-- Reduce consumption through investment in energey efficient technologies and building the green manufacturing base to support it.  
--Greater emphasis on fuel efficiency.  He chided Hillary (and McCain) for not standing up on greater fuel efficiency standards and ceding the fuel efficient auto business to foreign manufacturers.  Strengthening our manufacturing position would bring jobs.  Fuel efficient cars reduce cost of fuel as well (supply/demand).
--pass a windfall profits tax in the long run (but not pretend one can pass with Bush's signature this summer).
--transition ethanol to cellulose or other products to move away from corn.
--More R and D and use of alternative fuels.

There's a better, more complete look at his website: Note that for a better picture, the economic and energy issues interact, so you have to look at both.  Personally, I'd like to see an even more aggressive energy platform, but Obama's approach is more comprehensive than Hillary's, IMHO.  

Here are the links:

Make sure to scroll down to the bottom.
http://www.barackobama.com/iss...

http://www.barackobama.com/iss...

Here's the Russert Interview:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24...

I have just re-read the transcript for yesterday at This Week (on ABC's website).  After reading this twice, I still cannot believe the disparate coverage on Obama v. Clinton.  At ABC previously, almost half of the interview dealth with nonsense, designed to bait voters against Obama, question one supposed "character" straw man after another.  On NBC MTP yesterday with Tim Russert, the very same deal.  

With Hillary it was all business.  She avoided the character assassination and innuendo of previous appearances' disparagements of Obama.  But she did one more time say ABC should talk to Obama about whether he passes the so-called Commander-in-Chief bar).  When pinned down, she relented, and admitted, yes, he does meet that so-called bar.  

But the whole tenor is still extraordinarily lopsided. And do not even get me started on John McCain's coverage.  We'll all have to unpeel that onion of mythology in coming months.

The media should hang their collective heads in  shame.  

She KNOWS damn well that Bush will NEVER sign an excess profit tax on the oil companies.  Therefore, her proposal is worse than pandering, it is a deliberate lie.  This alone should convince the country she is unfit to hold public office.  I just hope I am not forced to vote for her in the Fall.

....thanks KathyinBlacksburg...I too can not believe the non stop questions Obama is getting on this stupid minister thing-a-ma-giggy. Russert, Lauer, Blitzer and Stephanopolis who sounds like he wants a job in her administration if she some how wins. And Bill O'Reilly gave her soft balls, cause he wants her to be the McCain opponent.
The idea that flips me out is that if she got in we'd have 28 years of Bush and Clinton. Come, give someone else a chance. And you're right KathyinBlacksburg the media want this to go on and on--PATHETIC NEWS. They're just like the oil companies-GREED, GREED, GREED.

All we can do at this point is start carpooling and conserving energy. We all need to get used to this. Its harder to pump existing reserves because of Peak Oil (plenty of scientific research to support this in spite of the oil industry's PR efforts to discredit it), and China and other countries are demanding more oil. The result is diminishing supplies of quality oil (oil in the bottom half of the reserves is not so good) as demand is growing, -just terrible. I can't help wondering why the "Straight Talk Express" hasn't done more straight talking about this.

While it is possible that we could drill safely in Alaska (there are technologies which can do this), this would only be a temporary solution as demand for oil will still outstrip supplies in the long term.

After reading this I can't help but wonder if Hillary might be even more closed minded that George Bush. She is so enamoured of her own opinions that she even thinks she knows better than the economists. We could try to believe that if her ideas were:

1. Based in honest assumptions.
2. Based on consultations with experts, and made some sense.

Neither of these seem to be the case.

It's crazy to not heed the collective advice of 150 economists on a purely economic issue and very reminiscent of Bush's failure to heed the conclusions of the pre-war weapons inspectors in Iraqi.

Oh well, as I lawyer, at least we're not being targeted, yet!

...to play the anti-"elitist" card.  It's pathetic, but it's certainly worked in the past.  "Elitist" defined, apparently, as anyone who's studied a subject and actually knows something about it. Heh.