Any honest analysis of the election takes into account that the candidates act and react as the situation changes. Primary elections are fluid and dynamic. As a Californian, I am certain that Senator Obama would have done much better if our primary was not held on Super Tuesday, or if John Edwards had dropped out a week earlier. He chose to limit his campaign in this state and fight for delegates elsewhere, presumably in less expensive media markets.

Hillary Clinton won California with a large popular vote total and a moderate advantage in delegates. Barack Obama, however, won the most delegates on Super Tuesday. The rules and schedule dictated the strategy. IMHO, Obama waged a wiser campaign under the agreed-upon rules.

Current polling shows Obama has significantly more support in California than Hillary Clinton. All this retrospective MI and FL hogwash ignores the simple fact: the candidates waged their campaigns according to the rules and the schedule that were set before them. Different rules or different schedules would have meant different strategies.

For the past month, with the knowledge that his lead in delegates is virtually insurmountable, Barack Obama has brushed off most of the Clinton campaign’s attacks and focused his attention on John McCain. Undoubtedly, he could have spent more time in WV and KY and kept her popular vote numbers down. He chose to concentrate on building a general election campaign and has started visiting battleground states such as NV, MI and FL. If the popular vote were all-important, he would be waging a different campaign.

I feel this is obvious, but I get so angry at the goalpost moving that sometimes I need to restate the obvious.