Kentucky Fried Clinton?

In the wake of last night's Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries—the latter won decisively by Barack Obama—a slew of leading political pundits (led by NBC's Tim Russert) have declared the race all but over.

They point to the popular vote. They point to states won. They point to funds raised, and pledged delegates, and superdelegates. But for all their pointing, the pundits have missed the point.

Namely, the factors they mention—"the math"—mean nothing. No, all that matters is which campaign, Clinton's or Obama's, has what it takes to go "coast to coast". With the game on the line, which candidate has the skills to grab the proverbial defensive board and take that mofo the length of the court for a "game-changing" (nay, game-winning) slam dunk?

In other words, it all boils down to who can win Kentucky. That's right, KY. Cue the map:

As you can see, each candidate is but one state away from an electoral Connect Four (i.e., winning contiguous states from the Atlantic to the Pacific). In their respective quests, Clinton (dark blue) need only bridge Indiana and Tennessee while Obama must fuse Virginia and Illinois. For each, Kentucky is the coveted tie that binds.

Note, too, how crucial Oklahoma turned out to be. Thanks to the clearly biased cartographer's decision to assign Obama the northern half of Texas, this whole issue would already be decided if Clinton hadn't "panhandled" Obama (55% to 31%) in the Feb 5 Oklahoma primary—a victory historians have already dubbed the "Barack Block".

But again, it is the May 20th Kentucky contest that should ultimately decide this thing once and for all. For afterwards, in his or her victory speech, the winner will finally be able to claim:

East coast? West coast? It don't matta. Come November I'll get you to the White House lickity split. No sh*t!!