This blog has moved.   As part of the changes to the Sky News website, our blogs are moving to a new platform and I am afraid that means they have new URLs.

Please clIck HERE to go to the new URL.

If you have bookmarked this blog, please make sure you change it to the new address.

Sky News blogs now have a new home page, displaying the latest posts, which you can find HERE.

If you want to make a comment on the new blogs, you will need to sign up. It's a simple process and will also allow you to use the new story-tracking feature on the Sky News site.

We have moved recent blog posts to the new blogs, but unfortunately we cannot move the comments as well. Sorry about that.

We hope you like the new-look Sky News site. If you have any comments please send them to us, either by using the survey form on the new site, the feedback area on the Discussion boards or by e mailing messages@skynews.co.uk

Many thanks.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

On January 20, 2009, with the grace of God, one of these two men will place his hand on the Bible and take the Oath of Office becoming the 44th President of The United States of America.

Breaking the cold January silence, Ruffles and Flourishes and Hail to the Chief will be played for the first time honouring the new President.

While in the middle of an excruciating summer of record-breaking heat and catastrophic floods, Inauguration Day does seem a long way off.

However, for John McCain and Barack Obama the race to the White House is on.

There are many factors that will determine just who will be the victor. Among them are the differences in: policy, experience, charisma, authenticity, age and race.

Unexpected national and international events may also play a role in the outcome but one of the most important factors in winning this coveted prize is money.

American politics is awash with money. It is a system where candidates must raise huge amounts to win an election and remain in office. This makes them beholden to those who contribute to their campaign coffers.

This week, Senator Obama made a monumental decision to become the first US candidate to forgo public-federal funding for his presidential campaign since it was established in 1974.

What this decision means is that he forgoes £43m in public funds (which is raised through taxes) in exchange for the ability to raise unlimited funds from his contributors without any restrictions on the amount he can raise or spend.

Previously, Mr Obama promised that if he were the Democratic nominee he would negotiate a deal with the McCain campaign where they would both accept public funding.

The mountains of money Mr Obama raised during his primary battle seemed to have changed his mind.

Senator McCain, who has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform, has said he would accept only public funding.

One of the key pieces of legislation which attempts to control the influence of money in politics bears his name - the McCain-Feingold Bill.

This means that the McCain campaign can only spend the £43m it will receive from the end of the Republican Convention on September 4 until Election Day on November 4.

Practically speaking, this means Mr Obama may have the capacity to out raise and outspend Mr McCain two or three to one. This kind of cash buys both advertising and on-the-ground organisation.

Mr Obama plans to run a 50-state campaign, making Mr McCain compete and spend money in traditional strongholds where no Republican has had to spend money in decades.

Public funding comes with rules and restrictions that apply to the campaign organisations of the candidates who accept it.

However, these rules do not apply to the Republican or Democratic party organisations or any of the hundreds of affiliated and "independent groups" including Political Action Committees (PACs) who align themselves with the two candidates and the parties.

The most infamous of these "independent groups" are the 527 organisations, which are named for the section of the legislation that created them.

It was a 527 group that raised the money and produced the ads that "swift boated" John Kerry's bid for the White House by attacking one of his greatest strengths, his Vietnam war hero status.

These groups from the left and the right are notorious for doing the "dastardly deeds" that no campaign would dare to do - they attack their opponent with sleaze and slime leaving their candidate with "clean hands".

It is the lack of control on both the amount of money raised by these groups and the accountability for the content of their advertising that Mr Obama cited as one of his reason for rejecting this broken system.

The Obama campaign will contend that by refusing to accept certain types of "fat cat" donations and running a campaign that has been financed by the average voter who has donated less than £40, Mr Obama has already achieved what campaign finance legislation failed to do - taken big money and influence out of politics.

Mr Obama's decision challenges the very idea that public funding is the answer. It also gives the McCain campaign the opportunity to call him a flip-flopper and to attack him at the heart of his brand, the Candidate of Change.

Mr Obama has taken two risks.

One, that he will continue to raise the record-breaking sums that he amassed during the primary. Fundraising records from May indicate that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama were neck in neck, each collecting £11m. This was £5m less than Obama raised in April.

Two, and perhaps more risky, Mr Obama has handed Mr McCain a way to attack his "brand".

It is here on campaign finance reform where voters will look at the years of Mr McCain's support and action and question whether Mr Obama will follow through on promises of reforming the system.

The voters in the primaries sent a clear message that they wanted change in the way the political game is played. They believed Mr Obama wanted to reform the system.

This pivotal decision by Mr Obama to reject public funding may cause friend and foe alike to question whether this is old politics as usual or a brilliant strategic move showing he has what it takes to be a winner.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

BARACK

On Tuesday June 3rd Barack Obama reached an historic milestone, becoming the first black nominee for the Presidency of the United States.

Another candidate who believed in a unifying dream and vision for America predicted this moment four decades ago.

Robert F. Kennedy said at the time that things were changing quickly in America and that he thought it was possible that there would be a Negro president of the United States in 40 years.

It is fitting that the first black nominee for president is not only the embodiment of our collective hopefulness but that he shares the spirit and the ideals of those who have paved the road with their scarifies before him.

Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, James Baldwin and the entire civil rights movement built the platform on which Barack Obama now stands.

Many believe that Obama's appeal is that he speaks to our hopes. He challenges us to become a more enlightened and more inclusive nation once again and to work together to achieve our common goals.

As well our noble ancestors knew change never comes easily or quietly.
 
When it does come it is often met with resistance as the fear of the future and complacency with the present painfully give way to hope.

Only time will tell if Barack Obama can measure up to the epic tasks ahead.

If his campaign for the Democratic nomination is any indication, he will be a force to be reckoned with.

As with the former president Bill Clinton sixteen years ago, Obama's candidacy may have aligned with a special moment in time when people are eager to embrace something new and challenge the status quo.

HILLARY & BILL

Hillary believed that she had earned the right to be the Democratic nominee.

Since she left the White House she and the former president continued to rule the Democratic Party.

Hills and Bill raised mounds of money for Democratic candidates and held sway over the Democratic Party apparatus with an iron first.

Although Hillary thought that she had paid in full for the loyalty of these elected officials - Superdelegates - in the end it was the crumbling support of this very group that forced her to accept that she had lost the nomination.

Hillary had planned and plotted to take her "rightful place" as the first female nominee for president.

She started out as the "inevitable nominee" practically being measured for her ermine robe and crown while arrogantly ignoring the other Democratic contenders and proceeding as if it was already the general election.

Her strategy and message were based on the "back to the future" and return to the “good ole days” of the Bill Clinton Administration.

She also expected to have the nomination all sewed up by February and therefore had no "Plan B".

Hillary planned to use her secret weapon - Bill - in a way that Al Gore, to his own peril failed to do.

Taking credit for all the good things in the Clinton Administration - without dealing with the "troubling parts" or the "dicey bits" that still continue to plaque their legacy.

Hillary and her team overlooked the "skinny guy" until he trounced her in Iowa.

True, she underestimated Obama but it was Bill who was both her greatest asset and in the end her greatest liability.

Bill started out as the most beloved Democrat who not only could raise money but also capture the hearts and minds.

However Bill seemed conflicted and could not get it quite right - that The Campaign was about "Hillary" and not him. 

Often it seemed that at the moment she began to pick up some steam he was there to pull the plug.

Especially when after Iowa, he opened up the racial divide trying to define Obama as the "black" candidate, calling his campaign a fairy tale and comparing his inevitable victory in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson's.

It was never clear which Bill feared most, electing Hillary as president who might accomplish more than he did or Barack Obama himself, a charismatic figure who could usurp him as the object of adoration in the Democratic family.

In the end there may have been nothing that Hillary could have done to stop this inevitable and historic seismic shift.

And for Barack Obama? Well, at least now he only has one candidate to run against for his place in history.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

As Lyndon Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act back in 1964, he leaned over to one of his aides and said: "There goes the South."

As Hillary Clinton chose to threaten to take her battle to the Convention floor in Denver she might as well have said: "There goes the Democratic Party."

The Democratic National Committee ("DNC") Rules and By-Laws Committee has passed two compromise resolutions in an attempt address the problems with the primary votes in Florida and Michigan created by that very same Committee.

Before the primaries began, the DNC and all of the candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, agreed to abide by the rules which stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates because they scheduled their primary contests too early in violation of those rules.

This decision said no delegates would be awarded to either state and these contests would not count in the selection of the Democratic nominee.

Both Clinton and Obama agreed to abide by this ruling. They both made public statements acknowledging that fact and neither complained about this ruling at the time.

At their meeting the DNC approved two compromise measures that reversed their earlier decision.

They seated all of the delegates, allowing them all to attend the Convention but giving them only a half vote. This changes the magic number needed to win 2,118.

The truly contentious part of the decision was the allocation of the delegates in these two states. In two states where no campaigning was allowed Clinton, who was better known, clearly had a natural advantage.

Without a real campaign the contests held in Florida and Michigan are not a true reflection of what might have occurred since many voters did not have the benefit of hearing the message from the campaigns and may have stayed home believing the Democratic Party would not count these results.

Florida was clearly the easier case to resolve where there was a primary with both candidates on the ballot. The allocation method the committee selected for Florida was based on the popular vote outcome.

In Michigan, Clinton was the only major candidate who left her name on the ballot. Obama and all of the other major candidates took theirs off.

The party's decision on the Michigan allocation may leave it open to attack at the Credentials Committee, which occurs one week before the Convention.

The party and this committee may come to regret these decisions that they hoped would bring unity.

Instead of simply abiding by their original decision - which was an option at Saturday's meeting - they chose to try to please all constituencies and may have truly made party divisions worse.

It also seemed clear that this may be the beginning of a Clinton strategy to overturn the results in over 50 primaries and caucuses where she did not win the number of delegates necessary to get the nomination.

When her "cake walk" to the nomination failed on February 5, Clinton was forced to begin to face reality.

She attempted to retool her campaign by bringing in her longtime ally, dogged political infighter and former Bill Clinton White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, to try to right her sinking ship.

It was clearly too little too late.

With virtually no way to win "fair and square" on the numbers that count, Team Clinton has resulted to legal tactics reminiscent of the "Bush vs Gore" battle.

One of the most stunning moments of the meeting came during the discussions of the primary in Michigan where Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's legal team argued with a straight face that the Michigan allocation should include no delegates for Obama.

Ickes said "Mrs Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee."

With those fighting words, Clinton has made it clear she believes the nomination should be hers at all costs and she is willing to do anything to win including a floor fight at the Convention in Denver. 

The ever colourful Ickes used the word "chutzpah", substituting it for another more colourful term that I know both former DNC Chair Don Fowler and Committee Co-Chair and FDR grandson Jimmy Roosevelt have heard many times before.

Team Clinton should certainly know about "chutzpah" since it will take lots of it to get delegates who support Barack Obama to abandon their commitment.

If they proceed with this battle, Clinton may fracture the fragile an exhausted Democratic Party coalition in a way that rivals the fissure created by Lyndon Johnson.

Clinton must now decide whether she is willing to risk being remembered as the person who divided the Democratic Party and possibility caused another Democratic presidential loss in a year when victory should have been all but certain.

It may be the time for the Democratic heavy hitters - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore - to join in a chorus of those famous Jule Styne lyrics: "The party's over...It's time to call it a day, and put and end to this battle before it is too late".

Or maybe it's just the right time for Hillary to sit back and watch McCain reap the rewards of the damage she has done while preparing for another run for The White House in 2012.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

During the early days of the Cold War just mentioning the hydrogen bomb or "H" bomb had little American children ducking under their desks for cover and peering out the schoolroom window for a look at that terrible mushroom cloud.

Now the terrible term "H Bomb" means all Hillary all the time.

It has been a pattern for Senator Clinton and her campaign pit bulls to make outrageous, inflammatory and incendiary attacks against her opponent Barack Obama, deny the attacks and then twist the rhetoric in such a way as to blame him.

We did this very same thing as children seeking to put the blame on someone else for our own misdeeds.

It is a lesson Hillary's Sleaze Team learned well from the Republican Political War Machine of Richard Nixon and carried on by strategist Lee Atwater during the Bush One Campaign.

In its most recent form this method was given a new and pernicious meaning by the "Swiftboat 527 Attack Campaign" against John Kerry in 2004.

Here is the pattern: pick the strongest attribute of a candidate and that's what you attack. In the case of Kerry - his outstanding Vietnam War record.

In the case of Barack Obama - his strong religious and family ties. Then go on the attack and question his Christianity and his patriotism.

If the candidate exposes your method, you deny it vehemently and throw it back at him.

With an electoral primary schedule designed to anoint Senator Clinton on February 5 as the presumptive Democratic nominee, when things did not go her way, Team Clinton once again tried to change the rules to give her more time to win.

Hillary's latest comments made to justify why she should stay in the race with the historical reference of selecting the nominee in June, was another attempt to buy her more time with Super Delegates.

This latest unfortunate reference to the Robert F Kennedy assassination in the context of Hillary remaining in the race breaks new ground.

These latest comments are not only fatal acts of a failed and desperate campaign but a tasteless and strategically planned attempt to rip at the heart of the American psyche.

For those who knew and loved Bobby Kennedy, even after 40 years it is hard to forget the pain and anguish we felt when we first heard the news of his tragic death.

We all thought: "No, this can't be happening again, not to out late President's brother. Things like this don't happen in America."

Well it did and they do and now we are reminded of it again. Not in any respectful or thoughtful way but as a cheap and calculated effort to suggest that such a violent act may not be a remnant of our violent past.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on just how far desperation will go in any attempt to appeal to the lesser qualities of our human nature.

If being caught up in the heat of a primary campaign is an excuse for rhetoric of this kind what brand of poor and inexcusable lapses of judgement might occur when this candidate takes her seat behind the desk in the Oval Office on Day One.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

Who could watch the John Edwards’ endorsement of Barack Obama in Grand Rapids, Michigan tonight without thinking that they may be looking at the next President and Vice-President of the United States?

The visual alone was stunning.

Two vibrant and GQ handsome members of the same generation appearing on the stage glowing in that "Presidential Convention" sort of way.

Many wondered why Edwards waited so long. Tonight the reason may be clear.

John Edwards shares the same values as Barack Obama and answers the question of how he can appeal to "white working class voters".

John Edwards' much sought-after endorsement this evening has, more than anything, cut the candidacy of Hillary Clinton off at the knees.

With their choice of location Michigan, a state that Clinton claims as hers even though Obama did not appear on the ballot, this pair sought to heal the breach in the Democratic Party together.

It seems to me that Obama's inevitability as well as his gentle handling of Clinton's downward spiral has worked in Obama's favour in attracting the Edwards endorsement.

This live endorsement may be a good opportunity for voters to see Obama and Edwards on the stage together in Grand Rapids. Who knows, a Vice-Presidential pick may be in the offing.

With Edwards'enormous appeal to working class voters, it is possible Obama may be testing the waters in his quest to capture the white working class voter that has eluded him so far in his battle against Hillary Clinton.

If Obama selects John Edwards he unites the Democratic Party and silences those who call for an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Obama and Edwards share the “magic of change” unlike Clinton who brings with her much of the past.

These two committed and energetic “fighters for change” look like two other winners that no-one expected as a team sixteen years ago: Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

At the time Bill Clinton was applauded for the courage of his choice - Al Gore, a former competitor, another “Son of the South” and a strong equal.

In addition to 19 pledged delegates, Edwards brings with him working class strengths, experience, economic expertise and excitement plus the appeal of a traditional white male candidate together with a “champion of change”, Barack Obama.

An Obama-Edwards ticket may be just the winning combination for Democratic victory in November.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

For the first time in this presidential election those elusive superdelegates have become part of Barack Obama's political treasury.

The rest, my dear readers, is elementary.

As Prime Minister Macmillan was fond of saying: "in politics, events, events..." - anything can happen.

But the question for Hillary is how to make an elegant exit from a hard fought campaign and remain a serious and viable political figure?

It certainly is not by suggesting in an act of desperation, as she did this week in a USAToday article, that only she can win the white working class vote in November.

Clinton said this was the sign of a "troubling trend". This premise may not be true since Obama seems to have done better with this group in both Indiana and North Carolina than expected.

Nor does she make her graceful exit by suggesting that Barack does not have enough support in the crucial big states like California, New York and New Jersey where she won on Super Tuesday.

This is a false argument since in a general election these traditionally Democratic states will not be John McCain's to win in any case.

Hillary will win West Virginia handily on Tuesday but if she stays in the race she will split the remaining states and Puerto Rico.

In fact, Obama could very well have it wrapped up on May 20 by winning Oregon, thereby capturing the 2,025 delegates he needs to win the nomination that very night.

So back to "Hillary's Choice" - pick one:

Go out with class and her reputation and faithful supporters intact?

Suck it up and maybe Barack will forgive and forget and pick her as his running mate?

(Remember JFK and LBJ were not the best of friends)

Continue a proud career as a leader in the United States Senate and make a difference for her state and country?

Stay in the Senate until it is time to run for the ill-fated Eliot Spitzer New York Governor seat?

Stay in and move the goal post one more time declaring that it now takes 2,209 delegates, which include Michigan and Florida, to get the nomination?

Stay in until the Convention and hope that Obama implodes somehow?

Or stay in the race as John McCain's hitman committed to ripping Obama to shreds, assuring her another shot at the title in 2012?

Of course, to contemplate these choices and make a rational decision Hillary must finally accept the fact that she may not win and there is a promising future beyond this election.

It is not altogether clear that she and her husband understand the time may have come to let go!

Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

With style and grace Barack Obama showed tonight that he has what it takes to win the Democratic nomination and very possibly the Presidency with a double-digit victory in North Carolina.

At 10:39 ET Hillary took the stage not declaring victory but giving a speech whose words seemed more like the beginning of a long goodbye. Although her words implied she would continue to fight on there was defeat in her tone. At 1:15 ET the Indiana race was called for Clinton 51% to 49%.

Her gracious speech may have been the beginning of an effort to heal the Democratic wound. Clinton may have decided it was time to save her reputation for another day.

Despite all the best efforts of the Clinton Campaign and the 24- hour a day Reverend Wright media blitz, Obama rose above the tidal pool of muck and mire to win a decisive victory against the politics of personal destruction.

With a combination of grit and grace, Obama refused to sink into morass and use “old style politics” against his opponent. One thing is now clear Obama has proven he has the mettle to dispatch both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Obama declared, “We will end it by telling the truth forcefully, repeatedly, confidently...even if it comes from an imperfect messenger… because the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great”.

Obama put an end to the Clinton Campaign’s argument that he could not win the big battleground states and be a viable candidate in November.

After tonight Obama is only 200 delegates away from the magic number needed for the nomination. He is ahead on all metrics: pledged delegates, total delegates, popular vote and gaining on Superdelegates.

The Obama victory in North Carolina and Clinton’s lack luster performance in a squeaker of a win in Indiana makes it all but impossible for Clinton to present a convincing argument on any basis that could result in the Superdelegates handing her the nomination.

Clinton needed a real “game changing victory” to keep her momentum going so she could continue to raise money. Not even Bill’s North Carolina “Bubba” tour could deliver a victory for her. Today may be her final “meltdown”.

The hour of decision is here for the party leaders, those elusive Superdelegates. There are now more Superdelegates up for grabs than the total of pledged delegates available in the remaining primaries.

As the contest moves from the campaign trail to the “smoke-filled back rooms” both campaigns begin the final push for the Superdelegates to join their team.

If they do not choose to end this battle now they risk allowing John McCain an easy stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.

There are of course Superdelegates and then there are “SUPEREDELEGATES”, the real decision makers, the party elders who have been very quite lately.

It may now be time for Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to do their job and knock some sense into the others who have been holding out.

Those politically savvy Superdelegates may already be packing their bags to catch a ride on the Obama Express before it leaves the station.

Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

Let's face it, in America racism is alive and well, percolating right beneath the surface in each and every one of us.

Some Americans are openly racist while others are racist only in the privacy of their homes and maybe even in the voting booth.

Some Americans are willing to fight every day to overcome their in-bred, culturally-programmed prejudices. Some are not.

Now, unless you have been on Mars for the last 15 months it's pretty clear that this presidential election is forcing many of our racial stereotypes and fears to the surface.

In the fierce battle for the Democratic nomination where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share similar views on so many of the big issues, the focus has shifted to appealing to the voter's worst fears and basic instincts.

In the meantime, questions of crisis, both domestic and global, are going unanswered. Questions like:

- Attacking the economic recession and reducing our national debt.

- Dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - not to mention global terrorism.

- Weaning ourselves off oil, and the international thugs who we are now indebted to, and finally addressing the real issue of climate change.

- Providing health care for the 50m-plus uninsured Americans.

- Addressing the world's food crisis.

Despite the urgency of these issues, the focus seems to be on questioning Barack Obama's patriotism and whether his relationship with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, makes him unelectable.

Now, keep your eyes on the code words here. You can no longer say the "N" word in public in America unless you're a 'Rap Artist', which is another issue.

So those inclined to use race as weapon now use codewords like "unpatriotic" and "un-American".

Calling someone "unpatriotic" or accusing them of being guilty by association is more politically acceptable than openly playing the "race card". That is what many people believe the whole Rev Wright furore is all about.

Some leading Democrats like James Clyburn, an influential black Congressman and uncommitted Superdelegate, believe that since the Clintons know they cannot win on the numbers they are "hell-bound" to shred Obama so he will lose to McCain and Hillary can try again in 2012.

Some worry that the Clinton Campaign has not only taken a page from the Karl Rove-George Bush playbook but they have basically laid out a road map of attack for McCain to use against Obama in the general election.

This "destroy your opponent" strategy has never been used before by one Democrat against another.

By doing so, Clinton has broken the taboo and made it easier for McCain to follow her lead without fear of racial backlash.

Obama and his supporters believe he is running as a "post-racial candidate" but it is still unclear if the rest of the voters are ready to see it that way.

So far, Obama's current front-runner status proves that all the rumours and innuendos have not successfully dislodged the hope and promise from the hearts and minds of his ardent supporters.

The question on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina will be whether the politics of race and the "do anything to win" strategy succeeds.

My guess is that those voters who have dealt with their own issues of race and prejudice throughout their lifetimes and during this election may find their voice.

Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News Political Analyst

Hillary Clinton has yanked a victory from the jaws of defeat.  She won the Pennsylvania Primary by a respectable margin. Now can she ride this win to the nomination?

This victory may have come at a high price for the political process and the future successes of the Democratic Party.

In fact, in her hometown paper, The New York Times, the editorial board seems to be taking back their endorsement of the Senator for her mean, vacuous and pandering campaign tactics.

Her campaign turned very negative, especially with a last-minute ad based on fear, evoking images of Osama bin Laden straight from the George Bush - Karl Rove playbook.

Although Barack Obama was successful in draining Hillary's coffers in this state's contest, this win will help her with her "big state argument".

Clinton will argue that only she can win the big states like New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania, with the bulk of the electoral votes needed to win in the general election.

She will also argue that she is the only one tough enough to beat John McCain.

The challenge for Clinton is to take the momentum from this win and turn it into a real "sea change" for her campaign. 

In a state whose demographics were tailor-made for Clinton, she failed to have a "blow out" where she could start to catch up on pledged delegates and the popular vote.

Will this victory be enough to convince some Superdelegates to come her way?

The Clinton argument will be that only she can close the deal with the white working class voters needed to defeat McCain in November. 

In their fight for Superdelegates, the Clinton campaign continues to move the goalposts and change the rules to fit any argument that can justify a win.

Even before the final numbers were in, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates were already claiming that Obama is "unelectable" because he cannot win the "battleground states".

The other key factor for Clinton will be cash. Can she turn this momentum into money?

Clinton and her team need to sell this win to their donors as a real turning point so she can fund the next contests in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.

Before the final tally was in this evening, her team was already hot on the donation e-mail trail trying to drum up contributions.

Obama's challenge is to convince the Superdelegates that he has what it takes to beat McCain.

In a state where Obama outspent Clinton two to one, he narrowed her lead over the last six weeks but did not eat significantly into her base. 

Obama's argument of "hope and inclusion" prevents him from using the "sledgehammer approach" that many are urging him to employ to flatten Clinton.

This defeat may cause him to reconsider whether he can win the nomination "taking the high road".

Obama must now win Indiana and North Carolina to keep his motor running and his Superdelegates from running away.

The Superdelegates have to decide who will be the better candidate against John McCain and how to keep the Party from crumbling before the Convention in August.