I think the answer to most of your questions is that  Hillary Clinton IS a formidable candidate and has widespread support and appeal among millions of Americans. She is not easy to beat in any state, and especially in states which favors her in demographics.

This is why we aren't seeing Obama blowing Clinton out in each state. I don't see it as a rejection of Obama, but rather a demonstration of Clinton's strength even when faced with a near impossible path to the nomination.

Its the toughest job in the world , you need to be ready for anything , especially now , with 2 wars , oil prices skyrocketing , an economy in crises .

Harry Truman said it best :

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen , who do you think has what it takes ?

- Hillary Clinton.

That sums it up .

Personally, it comes down to 2 things (my primaries still outstanding MT):

Trust: I feel Hillary will sell out any issue or value for electoral gain, and at this point I think this view is widespread and potentially fatal to her campaign

Iraq: I can't vote for someone who not only voted for the AUMF but was too lazy to even read the NIE, I'm sorry I can back her in November, but I've seen classmates come back maimed and I can't cast my ballot for the person who enabled their suffering purely for electoral gain.

I think the answer is he's saving his second act for the GE - I'm sure he's got an effective campaign strategy for that, he just has to keep plugging along to the end of this one first.  And that is all he needs to do - if he keeps going, he wins.

If he attacks Hillary.. "OMG!! his politics are the same as everyone else's.."

If he doesn't "OMG!! he's too much of a wimp to handle what the repubs will throw at him"

The the Hillibots..
Damned if he does.. Damned if he dosen't

Another question we might ask is that if Obama really believes he could win Florida and Michigan in a fair primary fight, why those states aren't going ahead and having a full, fair, and open primaries.

Why can't Senator Obama win in these important states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania?

This is a very complicated question. Sen. Clinton has taken the low road in these contests and is appealing to low information voters with disinformation and negativity. While Sen. Obama has rightly sworn off mud slinging, for the most part, he can certainly do a better communication job to this demographic.

In addition, and this is inarguable, there is a considerable racist vote in both states, at least equal to Sen. Clinton's margin of victory. I was struck by analysis last night that said that 17% of white voters in PA said race was a factor. That number rose to 20% outside of Philadelphia. Of those 75% went to Clinton. Imagine that for a second. 3/4 of admitted white racists supported Sen. Clinton, and that was 1 in 5 white voters. This is something Sen. Obama struggles with as expected, and I'm not sure what he does about it.

Why can't Senator Obama win in states even when he benefited from the backing of the states institutions and electoral machines and money advantage (electoral machines and state institutions refer to MA)?

It's been a long time since Sen. Obama had any institutional advantages. All of those pretty much go to Sen. Clinton. She is and always has been the candidate of the establishment in the Democratic party. She has the advantage of a former President running around campaigning for her and the ability to cash in on two decades of political favors. Any institutional advantage favors Sen. Clinton.

Why can't Senator Obama connect with white voters earning less than 50K?

I think the better question is why can't he connect adequately with white low information voters. I think this is an area he has to work on. Sen. Clinton is expert at taking very complex issues and making them sound overly simple, even if that means misleading the voter. Sen. Obama has a more thoughtful and honest approach that doesn't boil down as well. Still he needs to find a solution here.

More importantly, why are some demographic groups, whose support is crucial for any victory in the fall, still impermeable to the Senator's message?

They're not. This is a laugh. The two candidates split them. Asking why the older white female vote is impermeable is like asking why Hillary isn't getting black voter. The largest percentage of Hillary's base votes for her because she's a woman, and that's a fact of life we have to deal with in the primary. Hopefully, once Obama is officially the nominee all of these groups will once again coalesce as Democrats.

What can Senator Obama do to redress this lacuna and weakness? And how can he do it?

Well, there are several roads. Sen. Obama is hampered by his desire to run a positive campaign. While I think there is enough information around to incinerate Sen. Clinton, he won't do it, so his best bet is to just improve communication. I think there are a lot of ways he can do that, but I don't think I'll be telling you! ;-)

Is it time for Senator Obama to generate a new message or narrative on top of his hope/change message because this latter does not seem to connect with some DG?

The hope/change message isn't a "narrative". I can understand why some people, used to candidates who change their stripes based upon the latest polls, have trouble with this. This is what he's going to do when President, and it is the basis of who he is. It isn't going to change, and moreover, this is a change election. Without owning the "change" mantle, say hello to President McCain.

If Senator Obama is our nominee, isn't it worrisome that he did not win the most important democratic states (CA, NY, NJ, MA) or the battle ground states (OH, PA) necessary for any democratic victory in the fall?

No. Because there is absolutely no chance that whichever candidate is the nominee they won't carry CA, NY, NJ, and MA. As for OH and PA, I have every faith that once Democrats come together, together with Independents and Republicans, that we can win those states. Keep in mind we're presently splitting the vote.

If Senator Obama is the front runner, why hasn't he delivered the final blow and put this campaign to rest already?

Why hasn't Sen. Clinton. She has every institutional advantage. She started the race with more money. Still she now would need to win over 70% of the remaining delegates to win, and she can't reasonably win the popular vote unless FL and MI are counted pretty much as is, which, of course, isn't ever going to happen. Sen. Obama is playing this out. Winning 2/3 of all contests and coming closer than expected in states where Sen. Clinton was always expected to win. If we need to play this out to June then I guess that's what we'll do, but in the end Sen. Obama will be our nominee.