Questions of Strategy

The New Republic's John B. Judis successfully echoes the same blah-blah "the Democratic candidate must be able to win the big Democratic states in November" bullshit rhetoric that party old-liners are trying to shove down the tensed throats of slightly-less-than-ridiculously-cynical Democratic voters. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama has more of the popular vote, more pledged delegates, and more states than Hillary Clinton. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama hasn't really won any of the so-called "big states" upon which Democratic candidates have used as crutches for their reliably gimpy-bordering-on-completely-paraplegic campaigns since, oh, I don't know, the mid-20th century. [The New Republic]

Really? One's electability is determined by how popular one is within one specific demographic? You can't win the presidency if you're not the party's cookie cutter candidate? Yes, Senator Obama failed to win two of Philadelphia's four suburban counties. Yes, he has trouble with blue collar workers. But also important to remember is that the biggest reason why Democratic candidates are traditionally made or broken by the same 20-some states is because they're the only 20-something states in which Democrats campaign. At some point in time, Democrats might have to suck it up, buckle down, and campaign in states where they have to do more than just show up to collect votes.

Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Montana: I'm looking at you.