MyDD, Jerome Armstrong: "I completely dismiss the notion that there's a movement behind Obama."

Hillary's race to lose...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/13/223057/676

The "movements" behind Dean and Clark he cites were not what determined the 2004 primaries, and I doubt they will be this time either. What you need is an organization, and that is quite different from a movement, especially a netroots movement.
Hillary is the candidate extraordinaire because she has been building a juggernaut of an organization for years; indeed, has Bill's organization as its core.

Is Obama building organization? I don't know, but I am intrigued by his campaign's decision to put its emphasis on election training. My experience on the ground in 2004 tells me that training and organization in primary states is the main ingredient: despite the fact that many weeks of canvassing door to door told me their was little passion for Kerry in NH (I knocked on few doors of people actually claiming to support him), when I saw those firefighters and union guys roll in, I knew the jig was up.

So what's Obama got? A kind of interesting idea called "Camp Obama," that puts people through a weeklong course before they're sent into the field. It's detailed in this Boston Globe article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/02/camp_obama_focuses_on_election_win/

If Jerome is looking only for a movement on the Internets, he's looking in the wrong place, I think. Elections are (still) won in the VFW halls and high-school gyms, with phone banks and door-knocking.

and has been flaming for months.
so, what is your point?

Hillary is besting a field that includes inexperience and candidates prone to fumbling. The last debate and the constant gaffes proved that. Isn't it funny that the super perfect potential candidates of November 2006 really didn't exist?

Still, anything can happen with eight months left on the campaign trail.