In PA, 2.9MM, half that 1.4MM.

TX, 2.8MM. half that 1.4MM.

There has already been that NY Times article on it, and Fineman speaking about it ('the Hilary camp has to keep Obama's delegate lead narrow).

The NY Times, and Howard Fineman are at least two sources for that.  We'll probably be hearing more.

But the worry here, in the initial post is, is Obama the better candidate if he HASN'T won a big state?  This is really an ELECTABILITY question.  

This is a very narrow perspective, for a host of reasons, as the question as phrased ignores important factors for electability:

a. In an election where the two candidate don't have significant policy differences, demographics and machine politics make a bigger impact.
b. A lot of the larger states - NJ, CA, NY, IL, WA, will vote for a turnip if the turnip is running as a Dem candidate.
c. Demographics aren't the SAME issue, when a democrat runs against a Republican.  Some of the same people who would vote for Hilary on a demographic basis (say single women, and older women) will turn right around and vote for Obama, if he is the guy (and vice versa) rather than vote for the Republican.  So you can't evaluate "electability" in an intra-party election, like you can a two-party election.
d. No accounting for charisma, discounting earlier DISadvantages of the underdog.  Obama's already come very far.  To come to the point where he eked out a very narrow win on Super Tuesday is HUGE.  And yet, the question discounts the history of the fact that, clearly, INCUMBENCY, not electability, is one of the main reasons why Obama has not won a big state - it's much harder to turn around someone who had a couple of years If not more!!) to line up the organizations in the big states.  As the challenger, Obama had to find a DIFFERENT route to the nomination.

Doing so through the small states, is NOT proof of a lack of electability, but actually, proof of HUGE ingenuity on the part of Obama and his team.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/11/01/racial-diversity-in-presidential-campaign-staffs/

The reasons why AA (you know Asian Americans?!) overwhelmly vote for Hillary are varied, but having a demographic of campaign staff reflective of a swath of the community -- shows by example -- how a candidate feels by working WITH them.

Somewhere in all of this race has to be addressed, and why Obama who's suppose to be representative of race and "unity" in general, doesn't even reflect it in his own campaign staff.

Here's what's really terrifying me: I like Obama a lot and want him to win, but I also firmly believe that he really should win one of those three states (or at least tie) to prove something. What's scaring me is that Hillary's campaign is doing such an incompetent job in all the races leading up to that she's creating potential for a real bloodbath. I thought before that he'd have a narrow delegate lead and then Ohio and Texas and PA would make things pretty clear by virtue of whoever won.

But instead, Hillary is getting so viciously creamed in every other state that she may win those three by decent but not spectacular margins and we'll be left with a hideous super delegate decision about which factors matter and which states matter and which argument factor and it'll just be a damned bloodbath. Frankly, I'm worried about the party. I'm worried about choosing Obama if he can't win one of those states, and I'm worried about choosing Hillary in a bloodbath if she's too incompetent to at least show up in one or two caucuses or primaries outside of the big three. For whatever reason, she's done a horrible job and has taken unnecessary thirty point drubbings that a competent organization could've drastically reduced.

Please don't let this site become a dumping ground of garbage like this.

To my way of thinking, Obama has yet to prove he can win some of the key states' primaries, states Dems need in a general election.

I think this is a false analogy.  Just because Obama might lose to Clinton in a key state in the primaries does not mean he would also lose to the Republican nominee in the general election.

I agree it isn't looking good for Clinton overall, she is definitely the underdog at this point with very few options left, but talk about prematurely throwing in the towel to make things easy for Obama is not going to happen so stop dreaming.