Here is the conclusion of his take on last night:
Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware.
The problem with this (and I’m more sympathetic to Hillary than Obama at this point) is that Hillary’s negatives aren’t “all out there.” She’s perfectly capable of creating new, damaging ones, as she did with the Bosnia story. Plus, Bill is always a wild card, in terms of what he’s going to say, what is going to be revealed about his business dealings, etc. But I still believe–having gone back and forth on this–if you could wipe the slate clean of all that has happened in this nomination race and just pick the most electable candidate, Hillary would be the safest bet for the Democrats: Nominate her (with Obama as the VP) and win Ohio, and the presidency is yours. With Obama, things get more complicated.