It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.
Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy. 
But that's basically what most of the most vocal Obama supporter's here have been pushing. You guys don't see the irony of attacking Hillary as the 50+1% strategy candidate and then advocating an Electoral College strategy which is the most narrow and specific, with the least room for error, of probably any Presidential campaign in history.
Narrow, specific, and no room for error? Not exactly.
If Obama wins VA he needs to take only one of CO, IA, NV, or NM to win.
If he wins CO he needs to take VA or take two of IA, NV, or NM.
If he wins IA, NV, and NM then its a tie which he'd win in the House.
So there are multiple combinations with which Obama could win involving those 5 states. Plus, most people assume IA and NM are leaning strongly towards him so that means he only needs to take one of the other three to win.
I think what it comes down to really is how you define risk. Most people assume that its safer and easier to just go after Ohio but is it really all that safe to bank you entire campaign on one state? Before 2000, the most recent election in which switching Ohio would change the outcome was 1916. 2000 and 2004 are anomalies in recent presidential history in that neither candidate receive more than 300 electoral votes. That means that nearly every president was elected, not because of one crucial "swing state" but rather because he won a multitude of states by building a broad based coalition of voters. I think that is something which plays greatly to Obama's strengths. His whole campaign has been about building grassroots support across the country. Couple that with Dean's 50-state strategy and you have a winning combination.
Hypocrisy doesn't help you 'build grassroots support around the country'. In fact, it doesn't endear you to much of anything. When your supporters dance on the grave of the Florida Democratic party and your candidate makes up excuses to prevent the state of Michigan a chance to vote again, you don't have any credibility to talk about a "50-state strategy". The whole concept is now completely bankrupt, completely regardless of its merits, based on the actions of this champions. Rather than unite the party, the injection of Deaniac politics in the Democratic party has divided it against itself. The problem with our party today is that our party chairman made his career in national politics not by attacking Republicans but by attacking members of his own party. Rather than expand our reach to all 50 states, it is merely just another attempt to open up a mini "culture war" within the party between "good Democrats" and "bad Democrats", with a kind of unbending orthodoxy that will destroy it.
Buried beneath of all that analysis, which, scarily, mirrors perfectly the "Left Activist Line" that exists online, is the cold hard fact that your candidate is relying on a strategy where at most he could get 278-291 electoral votes, based on the states you mentioned. That is his max,
based on this strategy. Your coalition is not any more 'broad based' than the coalition who you seek to replace. The fact that it is based on smaller states does not change that. The "Left Activist Line" takes a very subjective view of the size of states, a kind of bigotry which was born of insecurity but of late has gotten absurd.
