Do Hillary Clinton's wide margin victories in West Virginia and Kentucky really mean as much as some think?  It's all about timing.  Had the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries been held in January, no one would care that Hillary Clinton won those states by huge margins.  The networks and pundits, not to mention the Clinton campaign, are all touting these results as evidence that perhaps Obama does not actually have what it takes to win the general election. 

But what if these elections were held earlier and some of Obama's victories were over the last few weeks?   What would the pundits be saying?  Recall Obama's win in Virginia (a swing state): 64% - 35%.  His Colorado win (another swing state): 67% - 32%.  Or how about states about as electorally significant as West Virginia and Kentucky, like Alabama (67% - 31%) and Georgia (67% - 31%)?  No one chalked those wins up as evidence that Obama can bring something more special to the general election that Clinton.  Probably because those wins were earlier in the campaign and were really nothing to talk about in the grand scheme.

So Hillary's won Kentucky and West Virginia by huge margins.  Big deal.  Obama hardly campaigned in those states, all but conceding those elections knowing full well that he has the election wrapped up.  It's like a soccer team being proud of a win that resulted in the other team not showing up.