Is Hillary Clinton bi-coastal? Can she win in America's heartland?

These questions surface in the wake of her victories in New York-New Jersey-Massachusetts and in California-Arizona and her defeats everywhere else except in her former native state of Arkansas and its two next-door neighbors, Tennessee and Oklahoma.

In the first flush of her California victory, it seemed Clinton had a clear path to the nomination. But the picture looks different on closer examination a day later.

While she was winning the dwellings of America's elite, Obama was sweeping everyplace else - Utah, Idaho, Minnesota, Illinois, North Dakota, Kansas and Colorado, many of them states with virtually no black population. And his success in Missouri, Alabama and Georgia show that he continues to dominate Southern states with their large minority populations.

Why is Clinton doing so poorly in the heartland? There, away from the liberal media and establishment bias and from the coastal immigrant and Latino concentrations, she seems at a loss. Aside from her core white-women constituency, these voters are really supporting the memory of Bill's presidency more than the prospect of a Hillary administration.

Obama is winning the primaries among younger, better-educated, less-immigrant populations. Among these groups, the future matters more than the past, and the record of Bill Clinton's administration and the implications of a Hillary presidency are separate and distinct.

Older and less-educated voters' memories of '90s glory are buoying Clinton's candidacy.

But the Northeast and California have already voted. Now the race turns to the heartland, where Obama's advantage may come into play; he's running well in "flyover country."

Over the next two weeks, nine states with as many total delegates as California will cast their votes. Obama should win Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC, because of their large black populations. His Midwest strength could well give him victories as well in Nebraska and Wisconsin. Continued...