I am getting excited to see the results of tomorrow's balloting. I hope Hillary Clinton wins Indiana. Though I'm not convinced Hillary has IN in the bag, it certainly seems that one would rather be in her shoes in that state tonight than Obama's.

I am much more cautious about North Carolina. I think that if there were no early voting, or if Hillary had had another week, or if Jeremiah Wright's little media tour had been a few days later...well, what might have been. There is reason to be enthusiastic about the returns from North Carolina, but we'll see. It seems like Clinton has too steep a mountain to climb in too short a time. I think Obama will win by mid-to-high single digits. But- hey- I'm also an eternal pessimist and often wrong!

But, I am more interested in probabilities tonight. Here's where I see things. This is my own sort of stream of consciousness. Let me know what you think.

Results in 24 Hours

Three Possible Outcomes (and I am assuming that the Oba-media does not give Clinton extra credit for a stronger than expected showing in NC, if it materializes.):

1. Obama Wins Both - Probably the ballgame for Clinton. I won't qualify that any further, but more will be said about the process that got us here below.

2. Clinton Wins Both - I know what the delegate math says, but there would be something earthshatteringly important about Clinton winning NC. Imagine Obama had won Ohio and Pennsylvania- about the same. A Clinton win there will prove that Jeremiah Wright has further hurt Obama with white voters. If he can't win the single most favorable state left to him in the remaining contests, I assume that it won't be pretty, but Clinton will be the nominee. (Probably on a Unity ticket.)

3. A Split - status quo. Daily trickles of superdelegates as we slouch toward June. I still think that a Clinton win in Indiana is a big, big deal. Obama was ahead 15 points in March and has not weathered well. It was a dead even contest on the night of the PA primary. I remember a CNN commentator (not sure which, maybe Borger) saying "Obama really, really needs to win Indiana." Regardless, a split is not a game changer.

Michigan and Florida Revisited

Let me be clear: I started this primary a process a Clinton supporter with warm feelings for Biden, Dodd, and Edwards. Obama was never on my short list, but I would have enthusiastically voted for him, were it not for this Michigan and Florida fiasco.

If Obama is nominated, but Clinton would have won more delegates had Michigan and Florida counted, I will write in Hillary Clinton as my presidential choice in November.

My rationale is this: Most superdelegate endorsements for Obama right now are based on the fact that he is ahead in delegates. I think that the disqualification of MI / FL is the silliest thing that I have ever heard of. The rules were arbitrary to start with (usually the worst kind of rules) and were selectively applies.

A fact: Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan. Most people know this, but still call it an illegitimate election.

A fact: Had Obama not vetoed it, there could have been re-votes in FL / MI.

A fact: Michigan and Florida are still without a voice at the convention solely because of the Obama campaign's intransigence on the issue.

A fact: Obama's proposal to just split the delegates based on the doctrine of "fairness," without even a nod or acknowledgent of the two million votes cast in those states is where he really lost me in this battle.

It is an opportunity for Clinton, however. If she stays in the race to the end, she will be able to say to the DNC that they could include the delegates from MI / FL (which would likely make her the nominee) or they can truly not seat the delegates. If she doesn't stay in until the end, the delegates will be seated, but they will be "rally round the flag" delegations for Obama.

Obama's intransigence on this question sets up an ugly scenario, for which he is responsible (if this goes on long enough): He can either lose as the result the DNC Credentials committee seating the delegates or, the DNC will have to follow through on their decision not to seat, which would be a disaster. All along, he fought solutions to the question. Checkmate by Hillary. If Hillary wins Indiana, I assume she will stay in the race to the end. Turns out Gloria Borger was right: "Obama really, really needs to win Indiana."

That we are even in this mess makes me almost unable to refer to our party as the "Democratic" party with a straight face.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a nomination won by an arbitrary disqualification of votes.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a nomination won by a candidate who actively worked to disqualify those votes.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a party that is willing to sacrifice the voices of millions of Americans in order to acheive a desired outcome.

The critical upcoming day on this question is May 31st, when the Rules and Bylaws committee will be reconsidering the Florida and Michigan question.

Electability

That old canard, right? Well, it turns out to be incredibly important. One doesn't have to climb very high on the fabled cherry tree to pick the polling narrative that demonstrates that one candidate is more likely to win than another.

PA, OH, FL are three important states in which Hillary Clinton is more competitive than Barack Obama. CO, VA, and WI are states where Obama looks better. But let's put aside too early polls for a moment. Put aside what we think we know that will happen in voting booths across the country six months from now.

I am more interested in positioning.

Let me ask an honest question, seeking honest responses: Of the three remaining candidates for President (Clinton, Obama, McCain), who do you think is seen to be ideologically in the middle?

This primary process has been very, very good for our party if in fact Clinton is the nominee. People I know who essentially spat out her name a year ago now take her seriously. She is no longer regarded solely as a radical feminist, with a predeliction toward socialism. She is viewed, in the main, as a thoughtful, tenacious, and pragmatic moderate.

I have no problem with radical feminism, or socialism for that matter. But most Americans do.

I would submit: Of the three remaining candidates for President, Hillary Clinton is the best positioned to win swing voters across the country.

She is viewed as a moderate on Iraq, unlike McCain.
She is viewed as strong on the economy, unlike McCain.
She is viewed as having the experience to do the job, unlike Obama.
She is viewed as a friend to the working class, unlike Obama.
She is articulate about tax policy and the impact that has on every day workers, unlike both McCain and Obama.

I know that a lot of people in the netroots don't like DLC-type moderates- they want purists. But, let me ask: who wins? I personally think that the unlikely nomination of McCain demands that we nominate someone from near the center.

Add into the mix that we now know that:

a> Obama can take a hit, but.......
b> it's like watching a trainwreck when he is on the defensive, and
c> the Republicans probably noticed that.

You get the picture. I think that whether we can win with Obama- now that the euphoria of February has yielded to a hard look in May- is a legitimate and extremely timely question.

The Unity Ticket

Ignoring, for a moment, the daily punditry that comes from the one-woman junta that Nancy Pelosi is emulating, I have this final thought:

My feelings about Michigan and Florida could be assuaged if there were a unity ticket. There are a lot of us who are Clinton supporters who have been watching Obama and this nomination process are are less than enamored with both. There are a lot of us who might look somewhere else for someone to vote for. Likewise, if Clinton wins, there are, I acknowledge, a lot of Obama people who will, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are being robbed of something.

I certainly have a preference about the order of the names on the unity ticket, but I think that about the only way to truly unite the party is to put both on the ticket in whatever order and move on. They clearly appeal to different constituencies- and they are all groups that we need to win. I think that this would, in whichever order, hedge our bets a bit, and probably successfully.

They don't like each other? Tough. Neither did Kennedy / Johnson. Neither did Nixon / Agnew. Neither did Reagan / Bush, initially. Neither did Clinton / Gore, at the end. But they were all grown ups who did what it took to win.

Just a few thoughts on what could happen, and what should happen. Happy Primary Day to all!