None other than Time Magazine agrees that Clinton's early losses were due to her mistake in not committing resources to the early primary elections held in the midwest. Behold,

3. She underestimated the caucus states. While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because:

The other four reasons, which have nothing to do with Obama's oratory skills and charisma, are summarized in the article by Time Magazine.

Again this article published by Time, a left-leaning news magazine, proves what I said earlier. Obama's wins in these early states had as much as, or more to do with Hillary's failure to campaign in them as they did to Obama. Consequently, Obama's electability in November is weaker than it seems, since many of these midwestern voters supported Obama by default and since the majority of the states in which these voters live overwhelmingly vote Republican in the general Presidential election. So, once again, Obama's support is less like an impregnable fortress and more like a thin and empty shell - a perfect metaphor for Obama's rhetoric and policies!