From Stephen Ohlemacher at the AP, via Yahoo, the truth about Obama's campaign. He's a charasmatic leader but also a ruthless rule-player, and that combo is what's getting him his win. His national director of delegate operations, Jeffrey Berman, spent the better part of a year understanding the delegate math:
http://news.yahoo.com/...
Highlights on the flip side.
Early in the piece, Ohlemacher tells us what we already know:
Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.
That's right. He DID the math, understood the process, and played it smart. Very presidential.
So ... not a "primary season run amok" as described by Clinton and discussed by Belevedere yesterday, but shrewd strategizing. And I dare to venture that if the rules had been different, Obama would have mastered those, and played by those rules.
Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. ... In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.
In fact, Obama's gain in Kansas was 14, more than wiping out Hillary's gain of 11 in New Jersey. Idaho got him 12, which wiped out her win in Pennsylvania. Somebody ignored the flyover states at her peril.
Not to deny the role that "soaring speeches," netroot organizing, and targeted fundraising also played. But he knew it was delegates that counted, and he knew how to count the delegates.
We need a guy like this who understand how to strategize to win.