The Clinton campaign argues that she should get the nomination because she has won the big states that go Democratic in the general election. Mark Penn, Clinton's $4M dollar man, even trotted out the argument that the only big state Barack won was his home state of Illinois.
OK, so what? Is Penn suggesting that Barack would not carry those states in November? Absurd.
The Obama campaign argues that he should get the nomination because he won states that Democrats do not usually carry, like Idaho.
OK, so what? He won those states against Hillary Clinton. Does that provide any basis for assuming that he would win those states against a Republican? Absurd.
For those arguing that voters should vote for one or the other BECAUSE of these factors, neither should be considered as they are absurd on their face. If voters want to use relevant criteria from primary results, what SHOULD apply is who gets Independent and Republican votes -- and, unfortunately, all we have to go by is the exit polls and, for what those are worth, they strongly favor Obama.
What also SHOULD apply is who is bringing new voters into the party -- again, strongly favoring Obama.
Finally, what SHOULD also apply is the chance -- not the certainty -- that Obama can realign the electorate and create a new majority vs. the certainty that Clinton -- through no fault of her own, but nonetheless, real---will exacerbate divisions and lock the country into the politics of the past.
In other words, Obama wins "every" vote Clinton does -- and possibly many, many, many more.
Which states Barack won against Hillary, or Hillary won against Barack, provide no insight into who is really the best choice.
What's more, the only measure by which we ought judge the candidates for their "right" to the nomination is whoever gets the most elected delegates. Period.