And here we go again.

One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in "boutique" caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: "Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling."

Really, why don't Clinton and McCain get a room already? They're all using the same arguments.

Even if those arguments are so darn stupid.

The rust belt is (from west to east) the states bordering the great lakes: Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Of those states that have had a real contest, Obama won two (WI and IL), Clinton won two (OH, NY), IN and PA is pending, and MI is still trying to figure out how to have a real contest. Not exactly dominant

And what the heck is up with the "latte-sipping" crap?

Here's the map, Obama states in Blue, Clinton states in Red (because she and her campaign have fallen in love with right-wing McCain frames). (And yes, I'm giving Clinton Texas and Nevada for winning the popular vote in those states, even though she ultimately lost them in delegates):

I see latte- drinking states on Clinton's camp -- California and New York! What an idiotic way to insult a bunch of states. And "boutique" states? Cute. Again with the "only big states matter" b.s.

That's why Obama is the far stronger national candidate. He respects the entire country, not just a select few "pre-approved" and "sanctioned" Clinton states. An assertion proven by the last SUSA poll, which proved not just a clearer path to the White House for Obama, but showed that he runs tighter even in states he loses. That matters at the presidential level, forcing Republicans to spend meager resources defending supposedly safe territory.

And it matters at the state level, making it easier for federal and state candidates to overcome the disadvantages at the top of the ticket. So looking at states with Senate races this fall, in Idaho, for example, it's the difference between overcoming a 13-point Obama deficit and a 36-point Clinton deficit. In Colorado, it's the difference between overcoming a 6-point Clinton loss, and riding a 9-point Obama victory. In Alaska, it's the difference between overcoming a 5-point Obama loss, and a 22-point Clinton loss. In Nebraska, it's the difference between a 3-point Obama loss, and a 27-point Clinton loss. In New Hampshire, it's the difference between an 8-point Clinton loss and 2-point Obama victory. In Oregon it's the difference between a 5-point Clinton loss, and a 8-point Obama victory. In Texas it's the difference between a seven-point Clinton loss, and a 1-point Obama loss. In Wyoming, where we have a hot House at-large race, it's the difference between a 33-point Clinton loss and a 19-point Obama loss, and same thing in Montana, it's the difference between a 20-point Clinton loss and an 8-point Obama loss.

We have more at stake this fall than the presidency, and we have a candidate that is running nationwide and showing proper deference and respect for our great United States of America, and we have another that has given the middle finger to much of the country.

That's why I've become an enthusiastic Obama supporter after being detached for most of this race. Because I'm looking to the candidate who is building a national party, not the one that continues to disrespect most of it.

p.s. For fun, here's the projected results of the rest of the primary contests per the CW, assuming new contests in Florida and Michigan:

Michigan and Indiana are the two tossups of the bunch.