Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.
Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too. (Game changer! We're changing the game!)
Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.
I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy. One is to win down ticket races. The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election. In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.
The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe. Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota. But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so? And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina? Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens? Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert. But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass. There's no other explanation. Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard.
What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything? He's losing because he's black.