Obama supporters on Huffington Post gleefully write that Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton by margins of 4-1 or greater in Pennsylvania. How can a candidate that is running as a Washington outsider outspend a Washington insider by such a wide margin, still lose in several important states, but still be considered the "favorite" to win the democratic nomination? Why would any true democrat be gleeful at having a nominee with the biggest pockets barely eeke out a lead over another popular candidate who is spending significantly less money? It sounds like forces outside of the mainstream democrat want Barrack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, even if these outside forces have no intention of voting for Barrack this fall. That would help explain how Barrack Obama can operate a money guzzling Hummer campaign in a hybrid campaign. How can a real democrat find it a good thing that the candidate that guzzles the most money can barely create a tiny lead in the popular vote while losing all of the big states AND a majority of the swing states? Barrack Obama outspent HIllary Clinton by 4-1 in Ohio, and lost. Apparently Barrack Obama will outspend Hillary Clinton by a margin of 4-1 in Pennsylvania as well. If Hillary Clinton can win the overall popular vote of these two states while Barrack Obama outspends Hillary Clinton by 400%, what type of message is that sending? Is it reasonable to assume that if Hillary Clinton were outspending Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Hillary would have won both states by 20% or more? Just who is the more popular candidate? I thought "change" meant not buying the popular vote by spending the most money. When Barrack Obama speaks of change, is he actually speaking of the change in your pocket? My theory is that Barrack Obama's supporters are comprised of 15% of all Republicans (who may or may not vote for him in the fall,) 70% of all independents, and 40% of all democrats. I futher theorize that Hillary Clinton is probably supported by 60% of all democrats, 20% of all independents, and 10% of all republicans (who probably won't vote for her in the fall). Please note that these two sets of numbers do not equal 100% each because each group of voters varies in size, however the democrat numbers do equal 100%, and that is the key. Hillary is most likely favored by more real democrats than Barrack Obama is. Shouldn't the candidate that is more popular within their own political party get the nomination? If more real democrats support Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama as I am theorizing, then there are more democrats who could become demoralized and disenfranchised if their first choice, Hillary Clinton, is defeated by a "crossover hodge podge of support" style of candidate who has had a huge spending advantage, yet still has lost in several key states. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. HIllary Clinton has not outspent Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in any state and then lost. Which gets me to my final point, Do you want to your vote to be bought by the highest bidder?