Recent primaries featured states that overrepresented Obama's constituency--African-Americans and elite (high income, high education) whites. His victories were still impressive in their size, yet isn't it a bit odd that the Democrats seem ready to pick their winner in what amounts to a 50-50 race simply due to who has the most beneficial states coming up?
In other words, if the huge March 4th primaries of Ohio and Texas, where Hillary was leading by wide margins in recent polls (she's got to lead somewhere when national polls show her about even with Obama), had been held on February 4th, would she seem to be the unstoppable front runner? Would voters be moving toward her because they figure it's time to vote for the winner?
Unfortunately for Hillary, March 4th is still pretty far away, and there are states coming up first that could be close but look like Obama victories. He should take North Carolina, though the question is will he be helped by Obamamentum elsewhere? A week ago, Hillary looked to take Rhode Island, but who would bet on her now?
The state to watch is Wisconsin. Obama's expected to win, but if Hillary can stay close, she can then hold on until March 4th, and if she wins (less and less likely), she can claim the people have turned to her. I still suggest she try the "They're saying it's over but you know better" approach.
Because of how the Democrats award delegates, Hillary has little chance of catching up to Obama, but I don't see why that should matter. First, if she can rack up the big victories, they'll only be separated by a small amount, and she can claim the people have turned back to her. (Could the Dems easily turn her away if the most recent contests had her beating him big?) She can also claim if Michigan and Florida had counted, she'd be ahead. The main thing is at this point, no one can get far enough out front to not need the super delegates to make it over the top.