This whole "big state" meme is absurd in the extreme. One wonders how far ahead Obama would be if caucus states where he won huge would have had primaries. As one example: Colorado, pop. 4.5 million, is a caucus state, and a swing state that may be crucial this year. SUSA polling has it going for Barack by roughly 9% versus McCain, and -5% in a Hillary/McCain matchup. And so on. Surely Barack does better in caucus states than primary states, but we simply don't know what the votes would be had those caucus states been primary states (he still would have won them, but my guess is he'd have fewer delegates, but an even larger popular vote lead). If there were re-do's in FL and MI, Hillary would win FL again, but might not win MI (they are currently tied there, according to Rasmussen. Also, although Hillary would likely pick up PA, IN, and PR easily, Barack is likely to easily pick up NC, OR, MT and ND by similar or even larger margins, effectively cancelling out both the delegate and popular leads in the states/territories that Hillary wins, depending on the margins each place, of course. As things stand, Hillary has no shot at overtaking Barack's lead in the pledged delegates, and a possibly but unlikely shot at overtaking him in popular vote. But all of that is kind of moot: according to the RULES, the superdelegates will cast the deciding votes. They should be voting in the best interests of the party. I think it's likely they will vote Barack's way not merely because he's ahead in delegates and popular vote, but because his coattails are much longer for the local races--he's more competitive against McCain in more areas of the country. Therefore if the superdelegates are thinking beyond the prez general election (where both Clinton and Obama poll ahead of McCain), they should be casting their votes for Obama. Any way it comes out, so long as it's according to the pre-established rules, and there is not even the appearance of shenanigans (which includes, IMHO, any efforts to swipe pledged delegates, or bribing supers with money or swanky positions in government), neither group should cry over the result. I think the article's correct to point out the hypocrisy of some Obama supporters. However the Clintonites have so far been much worse: whining about caucus states, dismissing Obama's states as "insignificant" (THAT ought to go over real well in the general), dissing his wins in red states (despite that Texas is her most important "win"), etc. etc. Between this and Ferraro, why do I get the sense that Clintonites are just pissed that this turned out to be a tough campaign, and not a coronation?