ng West Virginia and Kentucky by over 35% points in the past few weeks. They are playing it up as a big part of their 'electability' argument to the superdelegates. You would think that Hillary Clinton was walking on water to hear them twist the story.On the other hand, Obama continues to run a cool, calm and collected campaign. They don't get too high when things are going good. They don't get depressed and lash out when things are going bad. They simply take care of business. Obama has run a remarkable campaign. He went against the biggest, baddest brand in the Democratic party and he put a whippin' to them. Team Clinton started off this contest last year with millions in the bank and the air of being the inevitable winner. Barack Obama started off last year as a 'rock star' with no ability to overcome Team Clinton.
Fast forward to today --> Team Clinton is $20 million in debt and Obama campai
gn is sitting flush with over $30 million in the bank and over $30 million per month still flowing into his coffers. Which of these two leaders do you want to manage our national economy?I imagine that every time a Clinton surrogate starts hoopin' and hollerin' about these mammoth wins in West Virginia and Kentucky that the Obama campaign smiles with the memory of 14 contests where they won by remarkably large margins as well. I figure that the superdelegates can do the math. Villagers, take a moment to remember the size of Obama's win in these contests:
- Virgin Islands - Obama won by 82%
- Idaho - Obama won by 63%
- Hawaii - Obama won by 52%
- District of Columbia - Obama won by 51%
- Alaska - Obama won by 50%
- Kansas - Obama won by 48%
- Washington - Obama won by 37%
- Nebraska - Obama won by 36%
- Colorado - Obama won by 35%
- Georgia - Obama won by 35%
- Minnesota - Obama won by 34%
- Illinois - Obama won by 32%
- Virginia - Obama won by 29%
- Maryland - Obama won by 25%
