This is absolutely do-able...but we only have a few days left.

There's more...

The scenarios are Stolen from Elrod's Prediction Thread, but I thought it would be fun to put it up as a poll. We can find out how good at predicting results this community is on aggregate. Users who want to go on record individually can use the comments.

Elrod picks:
North Carolina: Obama wins by 8-11 points
Indiana: Clinton wins by 5-8 points

Update: Text in the middle of this diary has been edited for clarity

Barack Obama, "the presumptive nominee" of the Democratic Party, must feel lousy today after losing Pennsylvania by more than 200,000 votes yesterday, despite waging an aggressive and negative  campaign against Hillary Clinton, in which he outspent her 3 to 1.   It's not hard to imagine how much greater Clinton's win would have been had advertising budgets been equalized.

Democratic strategists and experts, such as George Stephanopoulos, have said that a win of 5 points or less by Clinton in Pennsylvania would have effectively secured the nomination for Obama.  But he was unable to crack Clinton's winning coalition of union households, women, white people,  seniors, blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Jews.  As proven in other states, Hispanics bolster her nationwide coalition even more.

The results across Pennsylvania were impressive for Senator Clinton:

According to exit polls, Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41). She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31). She won those who decided on the last day (59-41), the last three days (58-42) and the last week (54-46). Hillary Clinton press release.

Additionally, Clinton once again demonstrated her appeal in rural and suburban America, winning nearly all counties across the state.  And her succcess in Pittsburgh serves as a reminder that she too can carry urban areas.

As expected, Obama held on firmly to his coalition of African Americans and the wealthy (over $150,000 annual income).

But the AP asks why Obama "can't close the deal."

The sobering reality is that Obama's coalition is too weak and shallow to win a major cross-section of core Democrats from shore to shore.  Losses in one or two major states would hardly be noteworthy, but accumulated losses over the past 3-and-a-half months starkly reveal a problem for this "frontrunner." California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to name a few, offer classic Democratic demographics .  Surely the super delegates must wonder whether Obama, the most successful presidential fundraiser in history, can assemble a winning Democratic coalition in any of these electorally rich states.

Also, questions about Obama's character, experience, judgment, and ability to empathize with common folk have increasingly plagued him. Red flags are popping up on a daily basis:

The company he keeps, as described by conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy is an inconvenient truth.  Obama's ambition and charisma conceal his thin senatorial records, explains Todd Spivak.  His veracity about an assortment of matters, from meeting Nadhmi Auchi to what he actually knew about Rev. Wright's bitter rhetoric, is also problematic.  And Obama's arrogance, most vividly displayed recently when he "flipped off" Hillary Clinton doesn't help his image with average Americans either.  Along the same lines, today David Axelrod audaciously insulted white working class voters by declaring them irrelevant to a Democratic victory.  That dismissive attitude, along with patriotism gaffes, likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama. In the words of another writer:

If he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama's campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America. Source.

One no longer needs to imagine how the GOP and 527's will attack Obama where he's most vulnerable.  The North Carolina GOP has already unveiled a television ad featuring Rev. Wright's damning of America, as reported today by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic.  Although the ad is short and crude, the devastating potential of similar assaults is indisputable.  You can view it here.

Obama's narrow delegate lead can be largely attributed  to an effective strategy in caucus states (for which his campaign deserves credit) in addition to a hypnotized mass media.  However, the media is slowing waking up, as ABC News demonstrated in last week's debate.  And legitimate questions have now been raised about whether caucuses accurately reflect the peoples' will (as illustrated most clearly in Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by more than 100,000 but "lost" the caucuses) and whether caucus irregularities have created an unlevel playing field.

And speaking of the will of the people, Hillary Clinton now boasts a lead of 123,358 in the popular vote when results from Florida and Michigan primaries are included, according to Real Clear Politics.

Super delegates probably hoped to avoid the serious task at hand.  But because Obama can't close the deal on his own, their votes will now be determinative. And while General Election polls should be evaluated cautiously at this early date -- indicators of Obama's electability problems are evident.  For example, in Massachusetts, where Obama enjoys the support of Senators Kerry and Kennedy as well as Gov. Patrick, there is disturbing news for Sen. Obama, as reported by The Boston Herald:

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error.

A Democrat struggling here in 2008? An unpopular war, a collapsing housing market and $4 gas - if Britney Spears were running as a Democrat, she'd pull at least 50 percent of the Massachusetts vote.

John McCain poses another threat to Obama, which is the potential to attract Hispanics, a voting bloc that can make or break a general election candidate. Clinton, on the other hand, has already established her good will among Latinos.

Obama is inclined to continuously blame Hillary for his election problems. But each candidate must be accountable for his or her weaknesses.  And that is one reason I admire Hillary Clinton.  Not only has she adapted her campaign strategy and structure when necessary, Clinton doesn't take the onslaught of assaults personally.  In fact, I'd guess that her grit and determination in the face of adversity have won over more voters.  Obama, on the other hand, is an incessant whiner, which of course is an unappealing quality in a friend, colleague, or spouse.  But in a general election candidate for President, petulance is a sure recipe for disaster.

All in all, the super delegates have many factors to consider.  At this stage, they should have a fairly complete picture of each candidate's advantages and disadvantages for the General Election, including their judgment, credentials, and demographic coalitions. It would not be surprising, therefore, if super delegates begin to break towards Clinton as the primary season finally winds down.

There's more...

The Obama campaign gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law.

In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:

-- a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.

-- a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.

-- a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:

-- Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.

-- Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.

-- Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available

The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the Obama campaign applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:

-- a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

-- a bill that named a post office.

~~~~~~

Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:

In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]
As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have `unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq:

"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said `no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video]
But until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]

Obama campaign advisor Susan Rice falsely claimed that Sen. Obama and Hillary have voted differently on Iraq since joining the Senate. Rice claimed these vote differences reflected Sen. Obama's "different position" on the war:

JANSING: Bill Clinton made the point that in the senate Barack Obama voted exactly the same way that senator Hillary Clinton has on Iraq, and is there a vote where they took different positions?

RICE: Yes, they have taken different positions from the beginning...Since coming to the senate, he has been very clear in pushing every year 2005, 2006, and 2007 for a withdrawal of our forces. Senator Clinton took the view for a good part of that period that it would be premature and unwise to signal that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw, to set a timeline or a deadline.

Actually, with the exception of Sen. Obama's vote to promote Gen. Casey, one of the chief architects of the war, his voting record is exactly the same as Hillary. Hillary and Sen. Obama have never voted differently on troop withdrawals, timelines or deadlines.

Full list of votes available here.

~~~~~~

Sen. Obama blasted the energy policy developed in secret by Vice President Cheney:

Washington's failure is the failure of a president who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming - of a Vice President who developed America's energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other point of view.
Sen. Obama failed to mention that he voted for Dick Cheney's energy policy, the 2005 Energy Bill.

~~~~~~

Sen. Obama claimed he voted against the amendment on the 2005 Bankruptcy bill because he thought that a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans on credit cards was too high:

Absolutely. It is a fact because I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had no hearings on that bill, it had not gone through the banking committee.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Obama was planning on voting for the measure until a colleague noted, `thirty percent is sort of a random number':

To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws. But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. `You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for,' Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. `Thirty percent is sort of a random number.' Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates. Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos. [Chicago Tribune, 6/12/07]
Sen. Obama did end up voting against a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans or credit cards:

Obama voted against and Hillary voted for a Dayton, D-Minn., amendment that would set a 30 percent ceiling on interest rates for loans or credit cards. [Vote 20, S.Amdt. 31 to S. 256, Rejected 24-74: R 0-55; D 23-19 (ND 22-16, SD 1-3); I 1-0. CQ, 3/3/05]

~~~~~~

In 2003, Sen. Obama said that he would support a repeal of the U.S. PATRIOT Act:

Q4. Would you vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act?" A. "Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal... [Illinois NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03]
In 2006, Sen. Obama to extend the PATRIOT Act:

The Washington Post said of the reauthorization, "[T]he Patriot Act fight started with promises of major changes and ended largely with the status quo." Obama himself said the bill only "modestly" improved the PATRIOT Act and failed to do enough to protect civil liberties. [HR 3199, Vote #29, 3/2/06; Washington Post, 3/7/06; Obama Floor Statement, 2/16/06]
~~~~~~

Sen. Obama suggested he made his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman clear `at the time of the vote.' From the debate:

Blitzer : This was an important vote you missed the, you weren't present in the senate when that vote occurred.

Obama: This is true and it was a mistake - one of the hazards of running for president. What I have consistently said and what I said at the time of the vote was that we should not take steps that would increase two presences inside Iraq with an eye towards blunting the impact of Iran. I always think that's a mistake.

Sen. Obama missed the vote and said nothing at the time the vote occurred. His campaign didn't release a statement until 9 hours after the vote. The vote occurred at 12:44PM. Sen. Obama didn't issue a statement until after 10PM.

The issue also came up at a presidential debate that night, and Sen. Obama didn't mention it.

Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.

~~~~~~

THE ABUNDANCE OF NON-VOTES:

Sen. Obama's Present Votes By The Numbers

Sen. Obama voted `present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

In 1999, Sen. Obama voted `present' more often than he voted `no': According to state records, Obama voted `present' 43 times in 1999, while voting `no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov]

At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

Other Present Votes of Interest:

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote `present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote `present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]

Sen. Obama voted `present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]

Sen. Obama voted `present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Required 3/5 majority, Failed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]

There's more...

This is the column posted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius today, March 2.  And this is exactly why I can't buy into the "hope" or "hype", whichever you prefer, because the evidence just doesn't support it.  

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as "gutless." One Chicago pol says that "the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone."

Obama's brash self-confidence led him into his only big political blunder. Prodded by the Daley machine, he challenged Bobby Rush, an incumbent Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, in 2000. Rush pounded Obama by more than 2 to 1 in the primary. "He was blinded by his ambition," Rush told the New York Times last year.

Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

Voting for a candidate is always an act of faith -- a belief that the politician will win a mandate that allows him to transcend his own past limitations and those of his party. Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

No one who has watched Obama's sweep toward the nomination would say it's impossible that he can be the great uniter. I just wish we had more evidence.

There's more...