One of Hillary Clinton's arguments that she should be the party's nominee is that she is winning all (or almost all) of the "big states." Fortunately, this argument is falling flat, because it is a sure recipe for continued Democratic failure.
Those small states that Barack Obama is winning are exactly those states Democrats have ignored for decades, to the party's detriment. Many of us enthusiastically support Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" for gaining and maintaining a long-term Democratic majority. We believe that the answer to "you fight the fights you can win" is "you can only win the fights you fight."
Democrats have made significant gains in the mountain states, and now have five governors (out of nine states), and a few state legislatures. Both U.S. Senators from theoretically "red" states like Montana and North Dakota are Democrats, and Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico could soon join that club.
There is a plausible electoral map where Obama becomes President without winning Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. In other words, he could lose several "big" states -- including all of the big "battleground" states, and still win the election. Hillary Clinton can't even pretend that's possible for her; the other states she needs, like Virginia, West Virginia, Iowa and Colorado, won't vote for her. Add Indiana, Missouri and Washington, where there is a huge fight for Governor, and you have one less electoral vote than Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania combined.
And that's assuming Obama loses Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania! I wouldn't assume that, would you?
Not only is Obama more electable, but also the map on election night will look a lot bluer with all those states going Democratic. The emotional effect of a map that actually looks blue, combined with the pundits' repeated mention of the fact that the Democratic candidate not only won the election, but also won most of the states.
This may be why Obama constantly scores better than Clinton in head-to-head polls against John McCain.
Finally, in addition to the "electability" factor, there is the "coattail" factor. One of Bill Clinton's major failings was the lack of coattails. Two years into his presidency and he lost both houses of Congress. The only significant gains Democrats made had more to do with the Republicans' ridiculous response to Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky than anything else he did.
Hillary Clinton has no more coattails than her husband, but Barack Obama's coattails may be as long as Ronald Reagan's. An Obama nomination would be good for Democrats not only in the short run, but in the long run as well.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9]