If anyone actually thought Hillary's "I won the big states" argument was relevant, a poll shows that, if the primary were to be held now, Obama would win California, 49% to 43% (with a 4 point margin of error).

http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obam...

Though how much of that is a genuine decision by a decent number of former Clinton voters that they like Obama better based on what they've seen of the candidates subsequent to Feb 5, vs. the phenomenon that some people seem to just be drawn to voting for who they perceive as the likely victor, would be an open question.

Of course, as many have pointed out, no one seriously thinks NY or CA will go for McCain over either of Democratic candidate, which is why Hillary's "I carried the big states" argument--implying that Obama would more likely lose there in November--was silly.

Though what I haven't seen mentioned is--as if we need another example of it--the Clinton campaign's hypocrisy in the argument. Because they also have said that some of Obama's victories in smaller states are irrelevant, because the Democrats have no chance of carrying those states in November anyway.

When it comes to electability, if Obama's wins in solidly red states are meaningless, than Clinton's wins in solidly blue states are equally meaningless. Irrespective of whether the states are big or small.