Why the popular vote total isn't at all credible, Hillary

Not to simply brush over a shaky situation, but the popular vote tally is not nearly as credible as camp Clinton would lead you to believe. Many of Obama's wins have come in caucus states, meaning the gap between he and HRC is much, much smaller than what it would have been had an actual primary been held.

Maine: Obama 59-39% but only with a gap of 682 votes
Iowa: Obama won over half of the state's counties in this multiple candidate race, but only did so by 500 votes
Minnesota: Obama won this caucus state 66-32%
Idaho: Obama received 80% of the vote yet only distanced himself from Clinton by 13k
Nebraska: Obama's 68% of a romp was only 14k better than the second place Clinton
Wyoming: His 61% only allowed him to stretch his lead by 2k
Kansas: Despite getting 74% of the state's popular vote, he only beat her by 17k
North Dakota: A win of 24% was only good for a margin of about 5k
Washington: Obama's 68% only netted him 11k in the national popular vote
Alaska: The whopping 75% he received was actually only 4k votes better than Clinton

In the thirteen states the Democratic Party holds caucuses, Obama won twelve. In all of these states, he runs better against McCain than Clinton, giving credibility to the idea that had the party held a primary, he would have run up huge margins of victory against her.

Basically, the primary system sucks eggs. Until there is a uniform system in place and all states and candidates abide the rules, the malarkey the arises concerning the popular vote will be just that. It's extremely misleading for her to tout the popular vote tally as a reason she should get the nomination because many of her deepest wounds were delivered in states where Obama's margin of victory was severely limited.

For what it's worth, I voted for Senator Clinton in the Alabama primary. It's because of this mistake that I know how she feels when discusses the regret she holds in regard to her Iraq authorization vote. Obama 08!