A very quickie count shows:

when Obama won (30 wins)
– Biggest spread: 82% (Virgin Islands)
– Smallest spread: 1% (Missouri)
– Average: 29.5% more than Clinton

when Clinton won (15 wins)
– Biggest spread: 43% (Arkansas)
– Smallest spread: 1% (New Mexico)
– Average: 13.1 % more than Obama

Adding in Michigan and Florida Clinton’s numbers change to
– 55 (Michigan, Obama not on ballot)
– 1
– 15.8

So even including MI and FL, Obama tends to win by twice as much on average than Clinton.

Suffice it to say… Kansas by 50%!

MA – She won by 15% and about 200k
NY- She won by 17% and about 300k
FL – She won by 17% and about 300k
CA – She won by 9% and about 400k
AK – She won by 44% and about 120k

and there’s a couple more.

The story has really been Obama’s command of GOP and independent voters, and small caucus and red states, where he’s won a lot of delegates. The BIGGEST win for Oama was Illinois.

As I’ve posted before, with over 3100 delegates pledged, and some 900 left, the difference is somewhere between 100 and 150. That’s it.

Technically, you’re right. But it was only a matter of 4%. The majority of the states she has won have been really close. the majority of states Obama has won have been blow-outs.

Of course, I would expect her to apply the same logic to the electoral college when the time comes. Why have the commoners vote at all?

Clinton’s point is a fair one. Not all delegates should count the same, even thought the rules say they do.

I used to think the Dems had a great idea using fairness and consideration for all which led them to create this totally fucked-up system where Elections are open to all in some states, even including non-resident transient students, where in other states there is a convoluted, formula-based allocation that led Sen. Clinton, who on the popular vote by tens of thousands of votes in Texas to LOSE the delegate count, where no one knows exactly what rules the SuperDelegates must follow, where no one knows even why superdelegates exist.

I hope after this is over, no matter who wins, SOMEBODY breaks some heads and makes it better for next time.

“There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.”

Emphasis mine. I had all but forgotten that even if she gets left in the dust on the way to the presidential nomination that she’ll likely remain a Senator for several terms to come.

And I wonder what kind of Senate career she will have under an Obama presidency, or expects to have. After such a series of vicious and flailing attempts to declare Obama “unelectable,” if he is in fact “elected,” will she remain a bitter thorn in the side of his presidency?

I wish I didn’t have to ask this sort of question. It seemed obvious to me a few months ago that she would be a powerful Senate ally for a Democratic president, that she would rise above spite if not nominated. But the thing I’ve learned for certain about Hillary over the course of her campaign is that she’s not really as mature as I once thought; whatever gravitas she accumulated is easily sacrificed to the altar of her ego.

I hope I’m wrong about that.

Yeah, yeah, I know. MSM won’t do it and if anyone was likely to the Clintons wouldn’t let them anywhere near Bill or Hillary to interview them.

But, geez, “reporters”. Can’t ANY of you at least TRY to have a no-hold-barred interview with these folks?

My dissallusionment with the Clinton family grows by the day.

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president today in Pittsburgh, sending a message both to the state’s primary voters and to undecided superdelegates who might decide the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director for the Obama campaign, confirmed that Casey would announce his support during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial and that he would then set out with the Illinois senator on part of a six-day bus trip across the state.

The endorsement comes as something of a surprise. Casey, a deliberative and cautious politician, had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He had said he wanted to help unify the party after the intensifying fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.