Obama's website will not take my donation. It says my Postal code is wrong - but it isn't.

I was just checking out 538 and had this little brainwave about how Obama wins. Instead of talking about change, talk about the future.

I just want to add my bit and maybe hear from others on how crazeee it's gotten. Like many Kossacks my head often has that feeling that it is ready to explode. This symptom is a result of the conflicting ideas and "facts" bombarding us. So I am going to try to lay out the logic of this campaign.

I visited this list of delegate totals at CBS. Obama netted more delegates in Washington DC than Hillary did in Pennsylvania (9 vs. 8). The fact is her win in PA was NOT that valuable.

Jon Stewart's riff on her argument is is so right on. See DJShay's diary. The fact is Hillary's version of logic is pretty well "whatever works today - to hell with what I said yesterday."

My version of the logic of the primary campaign follows:

I got a notice yesterday about the shortlist for a photography competition from Photolucida called Critical Mass. One of the photographers shortlisted has taken some pretty gripping photos of soldiers in the Middle East.

Given the current Petraeus hearings I thought these were very topical, and deserved wider viewing.

The photographer is Peter van Agtmael. Click here to see his work.

Note I wanted people to visit his site and so have not copied any images etc.

I've written this not so much for DKos visitors as for other people. People who just don't get Barack Obama. Let me know what you think.

I first ran into Barack in an article in 2004 in the New Yorker. It was one of their trademark profiles. I remember it introducing this guy with the funny name. At first he sounded alien. Unlike my other friends. Then by the end of the article I was really intrigued. I liked what he said and really liked what he represented. I felt like I could really understand where he was coming from.

Later that year I sat through some hours of watching the Democratic Convention in Boston waiting for Obama’s keynote speech. My husband can vouch for the fact that I was pretty cranky about not missing it. It was my first real Obama-fix. It met my expectations and flew past them. And I felt like I totally understood him. You know how you meet some people and really click? You connect? Well that’s how I felt about Barack Obama.

I've written a couple of these diaries in the past and they made me feel better.

I woke up thinking about the situation. The Field has some great points.

Here are a few from me - let me know what you think.

I didn't say it before Super Tuesday, but I was squeamish about Obamamania. There needs to be fewer endorsers in the press, less emphasis on the giddy support, and more clarity about his positions.

On his positions Obama needs to emphasize his thriftiness. His promises will not come with huge price tags, or they will go back to the drawing board. People worry that dreams are expensive.

He needs to totally focus on domestic issues - the economy and very practical down-to-earth solutions. The broad brush is scary.

I just checked out his NYT blog and read this:

So here’s my question: did Reaganism bring a return to a sense of entrepreneurship? Not that I remember. I think Obama is confusing the 80s with the 90s, the Reagan expansion with the Clinton expansion.

The point is that the quintessential business figures of the 80s weren’t creative entrepreneurs. They were big-corporation executives (Lee Iacocca) and takeover artists (Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky). The gazillionaires who started in garages came later.

Actually the Mac was released in 1985 as I recall and Microsoft was v. busy up in Seattle. I visited family in Los Altos (now the southern part of Silicon Valley) in the early 80s and you could sense the energy - wish I'd made the decision to move there. I'd argue the guys in their garages were going in the 70s. By the Nineties it was the me-tooers and the expansion of the www.

The entrepreneurs and visionaries just didn't have all the press that they got later.

This contest is being turned into an ill-tempered vaudeville routine. How can Obama manage to pull a rabbit out of his hat?

First: Stop running for the general election. Talk of Reagan etc. plays to the American public. Direct your comments to Democratic Party members. You have offended some of these people by not respecting the work they have done over the last few decades (that is the greater part of their lives). Save the history lessons and the pitch to the uncommitted for after you win the nomination.

Two: You've got some great endorsers. Get them to get out to mix it up in the crowds - give a speech where they make their points. Having people issue statements doesn't resonate as news. Get these people to make news. By the way, put some of the women who have endorsed you front and center. Get their story out there. Like who is Janet Napolitano? Don't just let her be a talking head. Make it a bit more up close and personal.

There is currently a perennial weed in American commentary that only torture can provide answers in a high pressure situation.

Today in the letters to the NYT:
"And what will be the reaction, when the answer is "we had the right people in custody, and for days tried to get the information, without causing the discomforts inherent in what is considered torture, but could not get the necessary information"?"

This argument needs to be eradicated.

I am writing this to highlight a new angle being foisted on us by the Right. Let's stop it now.

So Barack Obama is "intellectualy lazy' according ot an unnamed White House source quoted in an article in which Bush says Clinton will win the nomination and then be beaten by the Repub nominee.

From the National Examiner:

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

He cited an example from Obama's memoir, The Audacity of Hope, in which the senator complains that many "government programs don't work as advertised." Five days after the book was published last fall, Obama was asked to name some of those government programs by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Adam Nagourney once again takes dictation from James Carville. I am not sure who exactly Carville is representing, but it strikes me that he may well be a stalking horse for the DCCC. And it looks like he is using a gambit from the Republican playbook.

That would be: when you totally screw up, blame your opposition for messing up in exactly that way, and completely ignore/dismiss your own actions. The fact is the DCCC did a good job raising money, but were caught flat-footed when previously obscure states came into play. The DNC and Dean took a lot of flak over the last year for promoting expenditures in "unwinnable states" and now Carville says they didn't spend enough. Hunhh?