Sen. Hillary Clinton and her supporters frequently make the point that she is the stronger candidate in “battleground” states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania against the GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain. This is likely the case.

We’ve examined that side of never-ending debate over electoral math, and it has merit, without question. But new polls released today in other states show the argument her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, can make in retaliation…

New Mexico (Rasmussen)
Obama 45, McCain 42
McCain 46, Clinton 43

Alaska (Rasmussen)
McCain 48, Obama 43
McCain 57, Clinton 32

Montana (Rasmussen)
McCain 48, Obama 43
McCain 54, Clinton 36

Wisconsin (WPR)
Obama 46, McCain 42
McCain 46, Clinton 42

Alaska? Montana? While it’s unlikely Barack Obama would actually win there in November, these numbers show a trend.

Rather than using the old Al Gore / John Kerry electoral map Clinton is banking on, Obama is expanding the map even in this polarized era.

Predominantly working-class Rust Belt states may be Barack Obama’s weakness, but greater strength in the South, Southwest and even out West could help him win back any losses suffered in “must-have” blue states.

This is not to say Barack Obama is the stronger general election candidate, but simply to say he is not necessarily weaker than Hillary Clinton.

In the end, it’s all academic. The superdelegates ultimately must ask, rather than splitting hairs over such figures, who ended up winning this contentious Democratic race - and who best represents our ideals and real change?