You may say, "But Drac, 9% is a huge margin!"  Well, in a general election, it would be.  In a gubanatorial election, probably.  In a primary, however, you have a much more limited amount of time and resources to allocate to fifty-odd total races.

The percentage margin of total popular vote isn't actually too helpful when determining the success of the primaries.  I could go on about Alaska's 35% spread for Obama or (my personal favorite) Wisconsin's hotly contested Obama+17% spread, or even Clinton's home-state 44% Arkansas beatdown, but quite frankly, these numbers, taken out of context from the primary challenge to get delegates, don't mean a lot.  

No, don't give me that.  The job of the candidates, as set up in the beginning of the season, is to earn delegates who will vote for them at the national convention.  Nobody sat them down before the season began and told them that they were also being rated on form, posture, and style.  They were told to win delegates, pledged and super.  Clinton started off with a huge advantage, mostly from her home states and favors called in from being in the Democratic establishment for over two decades.

In view of this race for delegates, I'm going to list for you the delegate margins from each race to date (this doesn't include the Democrats abroad).

Obama netted the following numbers of delegates from these races:

Alaska: 5
Colorado: 15
Connecticut: 4
Delaware: 3
Washington DC: 9
Georgia: 33
Hawaii: 8 (home state)
Idaho: 12
Illinois: 55 (home state)
Iowa: 11 (heavy early campaigning)
Kansas: 14
Louisiana: 12
Maine: 6
Maryland: 14
Minnesota: 24
Mississippi: 7
Nebraska: 8
Nevada: 1 (Clinton won popular vote)
North Dakota: 3
South Carolina: 13
Texas: 5 (Clinton won popular vote)
Utah: 5
Vermont: 3
Virginia: 25
Washington: 26
Wisconsin: 10
Wyoming: 2

Clinton netted the following numbers of delegeates from these races:

Arizona: 6
Arkansas: 19 (home state)
California: 38 (early voting)
Massachusetts: 17
New Jersey: 11
New Mexico: 2
New York: 46 (home state)
Ohio: 7
Oklahoma: 10
Pennsylvania: estimated 9-12 (home state)
Rhode Island: 5
Tennessee: 12

The following races were delegate ties:

New Hampshire
Missouri
Michigan (disqualified)
Florida (disqualified)

As you can see, Clinton got about the same number of delegates from Tennessee, New Jersey, and Oklahoma, and more from California, New York, Arkanasas, and Massachusetts.  From the delegate tracker's perspective, this was simply a middle-of-the road win for her, unremarkable except for the timing and how heated the exchanges during it became.

By contrast, Obama got about the same number from Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Washington DC while picking up demonstrably more from such luminary states as Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington... and that's not counting his home state advantage.

You can see, thus, how we Obama supporters can be scratching our heads at all this talk of "changing the game," when we thought that we'd been playing the right game all along.  If the contests were all about the popular vote, we probably should've gotten rid of caucuses first.  If they were about winning big states, then a little forwarning would have been nice so that Obama would know to adjust his campaign strategy accordingly.

Obama has been playing the delegate game, and well, all along.  He got twice the delegate benefit from Minnesota that Clinton is getting from Pennsylvania because he knew which districts in both states to hit for the most delegates and that keeping it close in the big states that he couldn't possibly win against a powerful establishment Democrat would make his smaller state victories mean just as much.

All the talk about changing the rules, from including disqualified states to using the Republican method to popular votes to somehow convince intelligent party insiders that somehow there's a better way of choosing the nominee than the fun little popularity game that people like them set up in the firs place smacks of Calvinball, where the rules are just made up at a whim so that a predetermined result is obtained (i.e. Calvin winning).  Please tell me that the point of going through all these contests was just to crown the person making the new rules the nominee.  I have higher hopes in Democrats than that.

I'm certain that Clinton has a fine case for the nomination without constantly trying to change the rules every time it suits her.  Her own merits are considerable.  Why make all Democrats look flighty by pushing all these ridiculous metrics?