So the Clinton camp and many of tonight's pundits are wondering why Barack Obama can't "close the deal."  This is a flawed argument for at least five reasons:

1) Assumes that earlier primaries/caucuses are less important than later ones.  Given the traditional emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire, along with the gambits of Florida and Michigan, this is an ironic assumption, indeed.  Obama has closed plenty of deals in previous elections.  There are more than 50 contests spread over time.  The primary rules give a role for each of these contests, and to suggest that later contests are somehow more important is to impune the structure of the primary system itself.  The Clinton folks don't seem to appreciate the real relevance of Obama's claim that "a loss is a loss."  Clinton's past losses still count.

2) Fails to appreciate Clinton's strengths.  The idea that many Democrats in the remaining states still prefer Clinton indicates something that everyone has always known: Clinton is a strong candidate.  It is not reasonable to believe that Clinton will suddenly become a weak candidate simply because it is late in the process.

3) This primary was Clinton's deal to close from the beginning.  All of the polls and expectations were on her side.  She had/has the Democratic establishment on her side.  Not only did she not close the deal, she went from presumptive winner to runner up.

4) Divided companies never close deals, their competitors do.  Since this is a business analogy, let's stick with it.  Even if there is division in a company in debating whether or not to go for a deal, once a decision has been made to go for it, successful companies present a unified front.  If they appear divided, the buyers go somewhere else.  Hillary Clinton has not only tried to say that she is the better Democratic candidate, she has argued that Obama is a bad Democratic candidate.  Her strategy is no longer just to build on her strengths, but rather to break Obama's down.  Obama just has not gone nearly as negative against Clinton as she has against him, and it is no surprise that Obama is having difficulty creating a clear Democratic mandate in such an environment.

5) Assumes that primaries end in knockout punches rather than contests decided by the judges.  Let's switch from business to boxing.  If there is no knockout, the boxing match is determined by how each round is scored by the judges.  Failing to score well in some later rounds does nullify scoring well in many early rounds.  Barack Obama neither needs to knock Hillary Clinton out, nor, do I think he wants to.

Now, having argued all of this, I will risk one final claim that may nullify any conversation about the above because so many people will disagree with this one final point: I am among those who are really beginning to wonder if Obama can close the deal in November without Clinton on his ticket.  Yes, she has huge negatives.  Yes, former President Clinton will be a dicey third wheel.  But Clinton's negatives may not compare with the negatives produced within the Democratic party created by this primary.  Obama needs to decide which batch of negatives he wants to deal with.  Yes, having Bill Clinton around will be novel, but not impossible.  The novelty of such a situation may not be inappropriate in what is clearly a novel Democratic primary.