Much more importantly, that Hillary was able to take three out of four, at this late stage of the race, puts to rest the idea that the whole country is moving towards Obama. As we've all seen in previous primaries, as the race continues, there is generally less contention. The party starts to identify a leader, people hop on the wagon, and support grows. Yet while the media and Obamaniacs have lined up to christen Obama the general candidate, and have started to talk Clinton down "for the good of the party," three states stood up at this late date and said, wait, hold on a second...
It does not end there. The next major state is Pennsylvania. Hillary has been polling strongly there, and with these three recent wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, her chances look even better in Pennsylvania, despite gubernatorial support for Obama. She also has a chance to do well in the neighboring states in between Penn and Ohio.
The Rezko trial is beginning. Articles are starting to come out detailing the scandal, and it does not look good by any reading for Obama. Clearly it wasn't a coincidence, clearly Rezko was trying to do Obama a favor — not so far-fetched in Chicago politics. And this will inevitably lead to the question of what Rezko was looking for in return for his favors. Any way you slice it, this puts a damper on the idea of Obama promoting a new kind of politics, and at worst might be illegal.
Then, we get to the touchy subject of Florida and Michigan. Should Hillary also win in Pennsylvania, the Democrats will be in a no-win situation. Hillary will push the issue, and the Democratic party will face the choice of alienating their constituencies in two key general election states, or inject mass confusion and bad blood elsewhere by holding do-overs. Lawyers will get involved. In terms of ugliness, this will make the 2000 general election look like a Playboy centerfold by comparison.
All the while, Obama's missteps, which were swept under the rug in time for Super Tuesday, are starting to get more attention. It's conventional wisdom that Obama's position of talking with Iran has hurt his credentials as a leader. His efforts to "rise above it all" have led to comments by some (leftist) pundits that he isn't very tough. Obama's excellent oratory, combined with Clinton's attacks, have worked to further the notion that Obama is a great speaker but not much else. Then there is the recent NAFTA debacle. And a more detailed analysis of both candidates' platforms indicate that the real policy differences between the two are minor or non-existent. At that point, why wouldn't you choose a candidate with more experience?