Clinton's risen from the dead, but is the stake yet aimed? While The NYT says she scared up the PA votes with a sad display of negativity, Dick Morris has more heartening words.

Writing today, he makes a good point about the PA voter composition:

"Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

"Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage."

The next races, he adds, are different:

"But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).

"Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more.

"But consider that a New York Times editorial painted Clinton's PA success with a different brush - that she won handily thanks in large measure to heavy-handed punches and fear-inducing ads."
 
So I come to wonder: was her win more about the demographics to which Morris points or was it more about her negativity?  Would she need both to win Indiana as she did in Ohio and PA or would negativity alone be enough for her?

And will Obama HAVE to go seriously negative in Indiana so as to beat her, even with more favorable voter composition?   I really hope not, but I want him to win.

Oy!