Though the Obama camp is bragging of his gains among Latinos, this boast should be taken with a grain of salt: in Arizona and California, the two primary states with large Latino populations, Clinton won easily.  Obama won Colorado and New Mexico, which were caucus states--with unrecorded Latino participation in those caucuses.

In fact, all in all, it would be safe to say that except for Illinois (his home state) and Georgia and Alabama (states with large African-American populations), Obama won by serious margins only in caucus states.  

His two primary state victories were squeakers--Connecticut by 3.5 per cent, Missouri by 1 percent.  In the other primary states, Clinton beat him handily.  

And, yes, I do realize that Clinton didn't beat him as handily as the polls anticipated a few weeks ago, but isn't it time to put that poor overused cudgel back in its holster?  (I've actually seen messages on other sites loudly arguing Obama actually won California because he only lost by 10 points while a month ago, he was behind by 20 points.)

No doubt Obama had a good night, but by any realistic standard, so did Clinton.  The actual result both in delegates and popular votes was a draw, which even cable-TV anchors--not a group known for antagonism towards Obama--were willing to acknowledge.  

Yes, Obama did better than his expectations of a few weeks ago, and, yes, Clinton did worse.  So what?  Did anybody with a grain of sense truly believe that a young, charismatic candidate with a huge bankroll wouldn't eventually catch up to the woman people love to hate?  Now we have a tie.  The question is what's next.

Obviously caucus states have the same weight as primary states in the delegate count--that's why the count is so close.  But what yesterday indicated was that Obama--momentum or not, cash advantage or not--can win a primary in a high-population state only with the near-total support of African-American voters.  Missouri was a victory for him, but a victory with a sting in its tail.