The analogy that came to mind when I read today's Obama-Clinton fundraising stories was of Kerry v. Bush in Ohio in 2004. Like Clinton, the problem with Kerry's effort there wasn't execution per se--the Kerry campaign, working alongside Democratic GOTV groups like America Coming Together, exceeded its own registration and turnout targets by a fairly significant margin. The problem was that they were working from what turned out to be the wrong paradigm. Their understanding of the other side's capabilities was way off base. And, as a result, they got their hats handed to them. Likewise, my sense is that team Clinton is more or less executing the strategy it drew up back in 2006 (or 2004--or, if you believe Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, back in Arkansas in the 1970s). The problem is that the world they're competing in isn't the world they expected to be competing in. What should worry any Clinton fans is that this kind of mistake is tougher to overcome than a mistake of execution, because a.) it takes longer to identify and therefore to correct (you chug along hitting your goals, not realizing that the goals themselves are insufficient) and b.) it requires an entire re-thinking of your basic assumptions, which most people--and most successful campaign operatives in particular--are pretty reluctant to do. I still think Hillary's got enormous advantages and that she's likely to win the nomination. (That's a completely positive statement, by the way. I'd be excited about Obama as the nominee, though I'd be perfectly happy with Clinton, too.) But she's clearly vulnerable in ways that weren't apparent six months ago. And if her campaign staff can't overcome those vulnerabilities--namely, the fairly narrow, traditional cast of her donor base and, conversely, her apparent shortage of grass roots support--she could very well lose this thing. --Noam Scheiber