Tonight's results seem to mean that the campaign will go on until Pennsylvania, at least. This sounds like bad news: a prolongued screaming match between candidates, candidate fatigue, money spent on the primary race and not against the republicans.
The good news is, if Obama practices what he preaches, the next two months could be very good for the democratic party.
What does Obama preach? 1) an end to divisive politics and a search for the common good and 2) the idea of a leader as someone who empowers little people, instead of as someone who dictates what must be done.
At this point, it is very unlikely that HRC will catch up to BHO in pledged delegates, so Obama's task is threefold: 1) Not fuck up, 2) Keep the rest of the races within respectable margins, either winning or losing narrowly and 3) making sure that superdelegates don't gang up on him.
Now, a way to accomplish this, is to embody his own rethoric. From now until April 22, Obama should make his campaign about electing new democrats, and keeping endangered incumbents from losing their seats. He should be working for the party instead of demanding that the party work for him. He should not make the message about himself but rather about public service, about regular people like Larry Kissel or Bill Foster who take it upon themselves to improve the lot of their communities.
Think about it, a presidential frontrunner campaigning FOR the little guy. This would change the media narrative, it would no longer be about the shouting match of HRC vs BHO (which, in the long run, HRC wins by getting both candidates muddied), but rather about Obama's commitment to the democratic party and to democracy in general.
This strategy would present a strong contrast between BHO and HRC both for the voters and for the superdelegates: one candidate is about personal power, the other about empowering others; one puts self over party, the other party over self. HRC could either continue to attack him and look selfish and petty or imitate Obama and campaign for lower office candidates herself, which would mean a net gain for everybody.
How is this strategy compatible with winning the remaining primaries or keeping them close? Obama would not campaign for lower office candidates randomly, but rather focus on candidates from states with upcoming primaries: Wyoming, Mississipi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia. There's a lot of great candidates to help there, and for whom a push by Obama could mean winning a close race, or making a race competitive: Larry Kissel, Barry Welsh, Anne Barth, Joe Sestak, Gary Trauner, Ronnie Musgrove.
By campaigning for candidates in future primary states, Obama raises his visibility in those states and draws the gratitude of democrats. The race ceases to be about who said what or who smeared who and starts to be about who is helping the most.
When september comes around, if HRC is still around, Obama would have a delegate lead (perhaps narrower than today, but still a lead) and will be the most palatable choice for superdelegates, since Obama will have shown a strong will to build the party and help elect democrats. If HRC follows Obama's lead, then all the better.