An argument for Obama's west victories being meaningless

I freely admit, I have no facts to back up this opinion/view, however I believe my thinking to be solid and reasoned.

1. Despite the cute victories, neither Obama or Hill will win Nebraska, Kansas, or whatever western states he may have won.

2. The caucuses/primaries whether open or closed to independents in those states that Obama won, I'd venture that if you looked at the map of how counties voted, you'd see that most of the votes came from college towns. These are towns where one would think you'd have smarter, more educated people, which has been one of the bases of his support. Moreover, Obama's winning the younger 18-29 year old voters by a large margin, and that's who is voting in those contests.

As far as the southern states, yes, Obama would be competitive in those states. But, looking at the arguments I make for a favorable Hill-McCain match-up, we could still make the southern states interesting by putting Obama on the ticket.

Finally, one more note not necessarily related: McCain once he gets his nomination sewn up he's likely to sound more moderate, go back to his old 2000 version when some Democrats were wondering if we were going to have to make a tough call between voting for him or Gore in the general. That would allow McCain (and right-wing surrogates) to attack Obama as a left-wing nut-job, who currently has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.