Amen.  Another aspect of the 50 state strategy is to make some of these red tinted states true toss ups (and turn some dark red into tinted red) in 2016 or 2020 by building a presence where we didn't used to have one. Ignoring these states only serves to keep them out of reach.

BO cares about the future success of the agenda, not just his career ambition.  Dig it!

What are you suggesting, by the way?

Yeah, but the Repubs controlled the Senate for another six years, so didn't it work? I see your point but it looks like Obama is hedging his bets here. Even if he loses, the Dems will probably pick up seats. I mean, hell, can you imagine how neutered a McCain Presidency would be if there were 55+ Democratic Senators?

"Just curious ... is there ANYTHING Obama can do that is wrong? Anything?"

I really don't get the mentality of people that say these types of things. Far as I can see, I've never met an Obama supporter who things the guy is omnipotent or perfect.

Just for you, here's 2 things I disagree with Obama on:

1) 5 years ago he came out strongly in support of the decriminalization of marijuana. So many law enforcement resources are wasted on such trivial "offenses". However, as it became apparant he was going to run for the big office, he backed away from that support.

2) He expressed support for the so-called "compromise" (capitulation) FISA bill. Though if he actually gets Telco Immunity stripped from the final bill, as he said he will work to do, then I'll certainly forgive him for this one.

There's other things too I don't agree with.

But why are some people apparantly so bitter that we have a candidate that people are so enthusiastic about? When was the last time we could say that as Democrats?

Have you not seen some of the criticism he has been getting over FISA? Look, if he has the resources why not speculate? In 2000 even Bush was restricted to the same cash as Gore in the general. Their idea was to get Gore to worry about CA in the hope he would ignore other places where Bush had a better chance of winning but the Dems didn't bite. Hopefully McCain will. Plus, it isn't like Obama is running ads in 50 states, just a select few they think they can win. There is plenty of polling available that supports this decision. Oh, and constant harping is just as counter productive as incessant cheerleading. But if you are bored you know where the door is.

1.  We'll be flushed with cash.  Putting it all in a handful of "swing states" turns into diminishing returns.

2.  They won't be flush with cash.  Forcing them to put money in our longshot bids stretches them thinner elsewhere.

3.  This will be a landslide election.  Putting money every could potentially get us a huge Congressional majority.

4.  We are likely to win.  By a significant margin.  Electoral college math only matters in close election (remember, Gore's popular vote margin over Bush was only 0.5%).  Therefore, maximizing gains down-ballot (particularly in the Senate) is really important.  More important, in fact, than running up the margins in the electoral college.

There's a difference between wasting resources at the tail end of a campaign and building support throughout the campaign.  I mean, if Obama spends the week before the GE in Alabama and Idaho, that's probably a dumb move.  Anyway, maybe you can provide a link for your position, because I have a hard time believing that it's as simple as you make it out to be.  

Besides, what is your preferred strategy, anyway?  

At the end of the day, I don't think even Obama expects to win Mississippi, but we have a senate candidate who might and considering how weak the Republican appears, boosting Democratic turnout could flip this seat. The game goes for Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Gary Trauner in Wyoming and Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz in Alaska. The reason California was such a mistake for Bush is that Karl Rove truly believed the "State of Cliton" would actually go Republican.

There is also a difference betwene time and money. Bush WENT to NJ and CA, I don't think Obama will travel to Wyoming, but if they have the cash to spend on ads and organizing without starving swing states, why not?

Heck, it's Texas.  If we don't like the redistricting in 2011, we can do it in 2013, and 2015, and 2017?  Tom DeLay said so!

Very , very good point. Hannity, Rush and co, are finding it hard to gain traction in GOP markets because Obama has people on the ground. I'm sure that the local Democratic candidates don't mind, since the Rethugs had such great sucess against Democratic Candidates in the spring by making them all look like Obama supporters.....LOL....

And I thought there was a senate seat in play in Alaska. Isn't there?

Second question: if you want to gain market share don't you have to raise visibility before you get people to choose. Is that squandering? Or a long term strategy?

And if Obama wins then decisions like these will be hailed as inspired. perhaps this is not the time for the strategy that we used to lose the last two elections.

Do you live in a cave? There is a top tier senate race there.

By the way, I know of a lady who was just Marin County, CA Supervisor, then she was elected to Congress, and now she chair the Senate Committee on the Envronment. Her name is Barbara Boxer. I know a former Detroit City Councilman who now chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. His name is Carl Levin. Finally, I remember a some guy who taught colleges courses at a small university who became a national figure on progressive issues. That was Paul Wellstone. So that Sheriff you mention could one day be elected to higher office, just like that former Indidana sheriff named Brad Ellsworth.