Another thing...

that I like about Obama's campaign is that he campaigns everywhere. I can't think of only a couple of states that have already held their primary or caucus where he didn't make a visit to the state. Oklahoma and... well, maybe it's the only one.

Contrast that with Hillary's approach of focusing on "big" states, essentially writing off the voters in so many "smaller" states. And since Iowa she has taken to downplaying caucus states because it's mostly "activists" who attend, which begs the question of why Democratic activists aren't choosing her or why it wasn't important to her to build an organization in those states.

You might argue that Obama's record of visiting almost every state that's voting is a function of the delegate race. But I'd respond that to the voters of the states he visits, the message is very different: You matter, that's why I am here. It's only together--all of us--that we can make a difference in Washington. He's essentially looking ahead to being President and saying, "When the time comes to make change, I'm going to need the support of voters across the country, not just in the big states." And ultimately it will be the weight of all of those supporters pressing on their Senators and Representatives that will shift the path that our government is on.

Perception often becomes reality, as seen from the perspective of people in Wisconsin:

But in trying to set low expectations here, the Clinton campaign also has left some Democrats wondering how aggressively it would seek to match Obama's effort....

The Clinton campaign's recent efforts to downplay the state have surprised some Democrats here.

"They're doing as much as they have to, to give the appearance they're competing but I don't think they are, really," said John Kraus, who ran John Edwards' Wisconsin campaign in 2004 and isn't working for either campaign.

And another perspective on why the ability to inspire matters from Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic.