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.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News Analyst

Elvis had it right for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania this Tuesday: "It's now or never".

If she does not win by double digits in the last of the big primaries, Hills must decide whether to walk away or continue the battle and see her Democratic Party and its nominee crumble.

Although the latest "movement of the goal post" now has the Clinton campaign claiming that a four or five point win would be a "great victory for her" even though she had a 20 point lead a little over a month ago.

All of this is good news for John McCain who is sitting back and watching the two Democrats do his dirty work for him.

McCain is purring and grinning like the "Cheshire Cat" as Obama and Clinton claw each other's eyes out.

Johnnie-Boy is getting a free ride while Barry and Hills - aka "Tracy Flick" - cover the Keystone state in a desperate attempt to sway those last minute, undecided voters that they have what it takes to become ruler of the "Free World".

Quite a thought for the average citizen from Allentown, Scranton or Philadelphia to ponder especially in a time of global terror alerts, shared international financial crisis and job anxiety.

They might ask: where are our great leaders?

Where is this generation's Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan?

As we approach the eleventh hour, the questions become more pointed:

Is Obama mature enough to lead our nation?

Can Hillary Clinton be trusted?

Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

Unless you are the three Presidential candidates showing off your meagre knowledge of the world financial crisis, or our "Lame Duck President", with a need to stir up some semblance of a legacy, not many of my other dear American compatriots have a clue as to who exactly British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is.

Being The Yank among my Sky News colleagues here in Washington, I have been asked several times to give the American perspective on Mr Brown's visit and exactly what it means to all of us here.

Here we go: "Brown, Blair, what's the difference?"

Never mind that most Americans are unable to pronounce the title Chancellor of the Exchequer, they have no clue what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does.

Others who are a little more engaged say.. "I liked Tony Blair before he became Bush's man and lied about the 45 minute attack from Sadam's WMD."

Others muse..."I thought Blair and Clinton were a good team, what happened?"

Americans do know and love Winston Churchill but can't understand why you Brits voted him out after he won the war. They say: "We would never do that, you see we elected Ike."

Some still remember Harold Macmillan. Maybe because of the Profumo scandal with all of those intriguing photos of Miss Keeler and Miss Rice-Davies on the front pages of our tabloids …so titillating for the repressed, pre-Summer of Love baby-boomers.

At any rate Mr Brown's visit comes at a good time for him and for us.

Despite the exuberant bedlam and tumultuous traffic snarls produced by the visit of His Holiness Benedict XVI - who, by the way, is staying in the Papal Residence just across Massachusetts Avenue from the British Embassy - Mr Brown's timing is not as off as one may think.

After all, with elections looming back home, it makes perfect political sense to be seen as a "Man of the Future" as well as a "Man with a Future".

And how better to project the image of a significant world player who understands all aspects of the credit crunch, globalisation and the need for fiscal interdependence than to mix it up with Wall Street Hot Shots, an over-extended Federal Reserve Chairman and the next President of the United States.

After Prime Minister Brown's Rose Garden "campaign" speech where he extolled the accomplishments and strength of the British Economy, don't be surprised if there is a dramatic up-tick in applications from "Yanks" who wish to turn into "British Subjects" once again, to skip our economic woes.

It is a "win-win" for our guys here as well.

Our Democratic candidates get to take a break from lambasting each other over crucial issues like dodging bullets in Bosnia and wearing American flag pins in places like Allentown, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Our presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain, can pretend to understand and nod as the former British Money Man uses phrases like "regulating securitised instruments" and "redefining global accounting standards".

So, to mangle another one of my favorite Beatles lyrics, "For the benefit of Mr Brown there was a show today…"

Do hope a splendid time was had by all.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

With a week to go before the crucial Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Barack Obama has exposed a raw nerve that could slow his momentum in wooing the working class - blue-collar voters in the Key Stone State.

For the past three days Obama has been forced to explain, clarify and get passed remarks he made at a "closed to the press" fundraiser in San Francisco.

He was recorded by a "guest" saying that small-town Pennsylvania voters, bitter over their economic circumstances, "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as a way to explain their frustrations.

In rabid response to Obama's unfortunate, if not well thought out, comments the campaign waters turned crimson.

The latest shark-infested feeding frenzy led by Hillary Clinton, who commented in response that his remarks were "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans", became the weekend hot topic.

To counter Hillary's claims that he is an "elitist" and out of touch, Obama has to gingerly walk the line between telling the truth as he sees it - voter frustration with the economy and dashed hopes in the American Dream - and stepping on the "third rail" of American politics, the incendiary "3 Gs" God, Guns and Gays.

It is rather ironic that Clinton uses the word "elitist" to describe Obama when just last week the Clinton's tax return disclosure shows they added $109m to their coffers since their White House departure.

It is often risky when a candidate actually dares to tell the truth. The truth is often painful. Some folks don't want to hear it and some folks don't want it hear it from a young "upstart" who wasn't supposed to be leading at this time in the popular vote, the delegate count and states won.

This week was not a stellar one for the Clinton campaign either. Just as her exaggerated Bosnia saga was beginning to fade away, her Campaigner-in-Chief needed to perform an embarrassing public regurgitation.

In his quest to rescue his Guinevere, Hill's Lancelot further muddied the waters with more factual inaccuracies and to add insult to injury claimed that because she was 60, tired and that it was late at night, she must have misspoken.

It seems Hillary's champion may have pulled the plug on the credibility of her most effective ad so far and raised some serious questions. How can Hillary be ready to answer that 3am emergency phone call if she is a tired and confused 60-year-old at 11pm?

When if ever, will Bill Clinton learn that this campaign is not about him, his legacy or his redemption? Or maybe he believes it is?

As we approach the Pennsylvania primary, where Clinton is still favoured to win, and the North Carolina primary two weeks later, where Obama has a commanding lead, the political game is managing expectations and seizing momentum to ride that wave to win the nomination.

By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

After a seven-month absence, Alice is back in Wonderland once more on Capitol Hill.

Lewis Carroll would be proud to hear just how loyal to his writings both Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petreaus were in their defence of a failed policy in Iraq.

Senators grilled Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus on their assessment of what the end-game would be.

In this crucial election year, the three potential Commanders-in-Chief had an unprecedented opportunity to display their leadership as they questioned Mr Crocker and Gen Petreaus on the US - Iraq strategy.

For their part, Mr Crocker and Gen Petreaus were responding to their future boss, the next President of the United States. The answers they gave, however, were like a military version of Carroll’s literary nonsense poem, Jabberwocky.

With the Pennsylvania primaries a little more than week away for the Democrats and John McCain burnishing his military record, these hearings gave the US voters the opportunity to see just how the next President would address the problem of Iraq.

Drawing his political line in the sand, Senator McCain said it would be irresponsible and reckless to set a timetable for withdrawal and that we are there as long as we have to be there.

He believes that withdrawal equals defeat and has tied his political fortunes to "success" in Iraq without a definition.

The Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, having a distinctly different approach, pondered how they would implement their withdrawal plan when Iraq became their war.

Senator Clinton, challenging Mr McCain’s hardline assertions, said it was irresponsible to continue on a course that would not produce any of the promised successes.

Challenging any progress that the Ambassador and General claimed had been made, Mrs Clinton said that after all of the US blood and treasure, we are basically right back to where we were before the "Surge" began.

By putting these officials on the spot regarding our long-term commitments, she questioned whether the agreements the Bush administration is negotiating with the Iraqi government need to be examined and approved by Congress.
 
She also challenged them on the idea that the Iraqi Parliament gets to approve these agreements and the US Senate does not get to give their "advice and consent".

Mrs Clinton and many other senators highlighted the economic cost to the US, while Iraq accumulates a $30bn surplus from oil sales and makes little contribution to the war effort.

For his part, Senator Obama tried to pin the Ambassador and General down on their definition of success. He acknowledged the "Surge" did in fact provide breathing room for the Iraqi Government, but added that they failed to take advantage of this opportunity.

Keeping the pressure on, Mr Obama demanded to know among the parade of "horribles" that would occur if we were to leave, exactly what the conditions would have to be to allow the US to consider leaving?

After a day of gruelling testimony and frustration, all three of the presidential candidates seemed to have one thing in common.

They want to get the American people engaged in the discussion about what to do next in a war for which there are no good and simple solutions: to find a way to get back through the Looking Glass.

Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst

Cynical Washington insiders say Hillary Clinton is so desperate to scupper Barack Obama's White House bid that she could back Republican John McCain this time around - leaving her a clear run at the top job in 2012.

The "Kneecap Obama now and get the nomination next time" strategy would see Hills send husband Bill out to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to hold off making their decision until the Convention in August.

Bill's message is "Chill out. This knock-down, drawn-out fight is good for the party and the Democrats will still win in November".

Just this weekend, despite calls for Hillary to leave the race from top party-elected officials like Senators Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy (both of whom back Mr Obama), she defiantly declared she is in this contest until the Convention. (Her "Last dog dies" strategy).

In the face of seemingly insurmountable mathematical odds, where Barack Obama currently leads in states won, popular votes, pledged delegates, and combined delegates, Mrs Clinton battles on.

Some inside the Beltway think that by reaching into her bag of tricks she has implemented both the "Kitchen Sink" and the "Tonya Harding" strategies, which include a measure of subtle racial innuendo and challenges to the readiness and patriotism of the junior senator from Illinois.

They accuse Mrs Clinton and hopeful "First Laddie" Bill of resorting to pumping up John McCain in hopes of deflating Mr Obama's victory balloon.

They believe the Clintons think that with enough time she can make him "unelectable" by August, forcing him to respond to her attacks and throwing him off his more popular message.

If successful, she and cheerleader-in-chief Bill, along with her team of legal brawlers, will stage an onslaught at a brokered Convention to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates.

She may then also have to win over both committed and uncommitted delegates for Hills to regain "her rightful place" as the nominee.

If for some reason this strategy does not succeed in August, Mrs Clinton may have successfully laid the groundwork for her 2012 run.

She may have irreparably damaged Mr Obama and eliminated his opportunity to use his huge fund-raising advantage to fight John McCain before the Convention.

The more jaded pundits also believe that by constant references to Mr McCain's patriotism and sound, mature judgment over Mr Obama's "other issues", Team Clinton may be sending a not-so-subtle message to the Hillary supporters - white, working-class voters - to vote for Mr McCain so she can run again.

If this is their strategy, Team Clinton must execute it carefully and at the same time appear to be loyal party members committed to a Democratic win in November even if she is not the nominee.

Since Mr McCain's age could mean no second term, perhaps Hills is willing to let the Republicans win one more time, to give her a second chance for the spot she believes she has earned.

Let's face it, in 2012 Hillary will only be 65 years old - a spring chicken compared to John McCain at 78!