If you consider the five reasons given by Time Magazine to describe Hillary's deficit in delegates, you arrive at one overall reason: She drastically underestimated Obama's appeal and took her eventual nomination for granted. Consequently, probably to save money, she focused her efforts on the more traditional blue states to obtain an early knockout blow and have gobs of money left to go after the Republican nominee.

In comparison, Obama, being the initial underdog, took nothing for granted and campaigned hard in all areas, including those that aren't traditional democratic strongholds. This together with his appeal, and Clinton's lack of appearance in those states, has been instrumental in causing Hillary to fall behind.

So yes - Obama obviously had the winning strategy and Hillary didn't. But on the other hand, voters in the early primary states, which Obama won, heard only Obama's case for being President - not Hillary's. So, if Hillary had campaigned hard in those early primary states, like Obama did, then we would know that voters would've had an equal opportunity to hear both candidate's case for being President. Had this condition occurred and if the voters had still voted heavily for Obama, then we would know that people were voting for Obama because they truly wanted him - not just because they hadn't heard the other side of the story, which was Hillary's case for being President.

This factor, together with the recent disclosures, concerning Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and the trial of Tony Rezko (all of which occurred after these early primary wins), suggests that Obama's strength, especially in these traditionally Republican states that he won in the Democratic primary, is considerably less than most liberals would like to believe.