Obama proved himself electable by winning 11 straight states since Super Tuesday, caucuses and primaries. He won those states because he refused to concede working class voters, Latino and older voters to HRC. He won those states because of his superb ground organization that has redefined what it means to use money wisely in a national political campaign.

HRC, in contrast, conceded the African American vote, and didn't even bother to seriously contest the Potomac and Wisconsin. Many report that this has been due to dwindling funds and a lack of budgeting for a post-Super Tuesday fight. This is the end result of a candidacy that six months ago was double digits ahead of the pack in polls, had the most respected endorsements, and had raised the most money. She spent the money buying ads and precious time speaking to the media and sending surrogates to speak against Obama.

This is in contrast to the Obama camp, of which some reporters complained seemed to have an inefficient and even sometimes seriously slow response to the press. In any other campaign, this disparity might have worked in her favor. But Obama and Axelrod clearly had other priorities, all of which paid off.

Beam makes it sound like people switched wholesale to Obama just because of the "phenomenon" [insert references to "cult", "empty suit", "likeability"], but he's made a stronger case for himself since Super Tuesday, using the added time to speak more directly to concerns about the economy and health care.

So, given the choice between two candidates who are overall very similar in policies and in record, they'll go with the guy who just won 11 primaries. Go figure.