Firstly, because he has not been able to win a big state, not even with big momentum and favorable press coverage for most of the time.

Secondly, and more seriously, because just one week of some negative coverage and a more critical approach to the press gave him a sizeable dip in the polls. All the polls were showing him clearly closing the gap in both states, and holding a good lead nationally. Then, after just one week of the NAFTA meeting, more questions asked in the press, and the Clinton campaign running some effective ads for a change, he loses both states, and takes a dip in both national tracking polls.

Look at Texas: Clinton won late deciders by 23%. If that is the effect after just one week of one negative story and more critical coverage, then he is very vulnerable in the general election.

In the general election, there'll be no more momentum by winning smaller states. It will be much harder to generate high-profile media moments (except for the convention).

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have answered all the questions a nominee must answer before we can feel confident of his or her chances in November.

Barack Obama has been a Media Darling and is certain to get better Media coverage.

And while normally one would never have imagined the Clintons having trouble with African Americans, the stark reality NOW is that this nominating process has weakened Hillary Clinton's appeal with African Americans. This matters. A lot.

Hillary's support seems very strong in my opinion. There seems to be an embarrassment factor that others have talked about that shows up in polls and in caucuses. I think that makes sense with all the years of Clinton bashing in all quarters.

I agree completely that both of these candidates are flawed. Obama seems less like a democrat when he says republicans have opinions that should be listened to when it comes to core democratic values. For example choice. That scares me. The Clintons are far too conservative for my taste. But at least Hillary has been pretty good on most democratic values and seems aligned to be a fighter for those values.

So what has to happen? I think if Hillary wins PA, even with less pledged delegates, has a very good case to make to super delegates. If Obama can't win any large state other than his own, and especially doesn't look good when you compare the big purple states together, he looks very vulnerable.

It would be awesome if the two candidates would both focus their energy on how they would combat the Republican candidate in the fall, but as people have said already, it's hard for me to imagine how Obama would fit this in with the tack he's been taking. He's seemed way too afraid of ticking off Republicans and has not shown any propensity to go after the people who have dragged our country. This is the single thing that has made me leery of him in recent weeks (and I was fairly enthusiastic about his candidacy earlier, even though I ended up voting for Clinton in my own primary). Further, it's an aspect of him I wouldn't have learned except for the long primary process, so see my first paragraph.

both gore and kerry, who had enjoyed relatively decent press coverage up to the point of their being the actual nominee (ok, gore started getting it during the impeachment), were then both savaged by the media. obama will fare no better, i guarantee it.

sen. clinton will continue to be treated in the same manner that she has been for the past 16 years: she'll be vilified by them day/night/weekends/holidays. she has shown a consistent ability to handle it, sen. obama will the proverbial deer caught in the headlites.

as well, sen. obama will also face, for the first time in concert, both the republican and right-wingnut smear machines. he will not survive.

while his support among AA's will, i'm sure, continue unabated, they represent a small minority of the voting population, at best. white females by themselves outnumber all AA's.

the republican "crossover" voters, who gave sen. obama wins, won't in the fall. they'll vote for mccain or no one.

the crucial weakness of sen. obama is his failure to win a single large state; this will kill him in nov. if he's unable to win those states in the democratic primary, by what perverse logic does anyone think he's capable of doing it in the GE?

He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties. Even though he's able to rack up a large number of urban black voters he did terrible among white voters, winning just 34 percent.

and

In Ohio, Clinton won the votes of Democrats by a 14 percent margin, 56-42. Clinton and Obama tied among Republican & Independent voters. I find it ironic that the most strident of "progressives" find themselves backing the candidate whom does the least well among self-declared Democrats.

And lets not forget that Obama outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin, and had the union help.