Other Reasons:

Wright, Ayers, Bittercling, disconnected attitute about energy prices.

Also the media are starting to attack him and various GOP moles like IWF's Michelle Bernard are starting to see their plans reach fruition.

Obama simply lost massive support among white voter.

Virginia does have more college graduates and more people making over $50,000, but the margins between education and income groups aren't close to those between racial groups.

It appears the losses were more concentrated among those making more than $50,000, but I don't know how to compare that, given the different costs of living.

Chaos 2.0 looks to be a damp squib in comparison. Intended to drag out the Dem race a little bit longer to cover McCain from scrutiny.  Also a last chance to torture a Clinton and give kerry talking points.  Is he having some revenge on Clinton for the muffed Iraq joke he told in 2006?

So what is the reason?

I feel so attacked by his supporters that I am really starting to agree that he is creating a new kind of politics:  

It is the kind of politics that is sleek, stylish, and cool without any substance.

It is the kind of politics that convinces the media that it is hopeful and refreshing (in sound bites) while doing the opposite).

It is the kind of politics that calls someone racist  who it knows is not racist.

It is the kind of politics who says someone is trying to "steal the election" when they are just competing hard.

I don't want this kind of politician as my president.

There are so many possible explanations that you can't just say that racism is the cause.

It's clear that Obama does not have a problem with white people, as you recklessly and disingenuously assert. He won Colorado, Iowa, Wyoming, and Connecticut, not exactly the most diverse states in the Union. He does, however, have an Appalachia problem. County-by-county results from NC affirm this. Luckily for the Democratic party, we've not won Appalachia in a Presidential contest in decades, and it doesn't factor into any Democrat's path to the White House.

I go hung out there for a good dose of disinfectant and a lough  when people like you infect me.

Now, we have had a real chance to see something about both of them.  We have learned what of person they each are and what kind of campaign they would run.  We don't have idealistic books, we have concrete evidence of the type of things they are willing to do to win.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/1875/4000/en/md.html?cid=100

Obama won the state, but Hillary won most of the counties especially in the West and costal.  

Can Obama bring over the traditional democrats when Brazille says the "old" coalition isn't needed anymore?  That's the question of electability.  Are those who changed parties going to stay Dem or just did it for the primaries?

Perhaps a month from now, it wouldn't have been as much as a factor.

But the bottom line is this, if Hillary gets the nomination after Obama has the most pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the most states won at the end of this process, African-Americans will totally feel disenfranchised.  

I think that blacks will feel that the Democratic party turned their backs on an African-American candidate who essentially has reached the marks set for the nomination.

They are a constituency in the Democratic coalition, just like women and working class voters and working professionals (college grads) and it is necessary to win those voters to win.

Hills was doing well with that constituency for a time until some things did happen that created a perception of hostility to black voters. And after that, not only did Hills not even bother to make an attempt to reconcile with a constituency that has been extremely loyal to the Clintons over the years, she went the other direction.

I really think that if she gave her own "race speech", it would have been really effective.  But my black friends tell me that it didn't have to be this way and it really didn't because she was winning the black back in December.

As I keep reading over and over that Obama would not be winning this without Black votes, it reminds me of 1992, when the Republicans said that Bill wouldn't have won without black voters.  And the underlying assumption is that black voters are somehow illegitimate.  And the Republicans, who feel that way, instead of trying to win Black voters themselves have tried by various measures to engage in campaigns to disenfranchise them.

The TimeFrame argument is a good one:

One year ago, Hillary was the total Front Runner.

Despite all her money advantages, and political advantages, she trails a novice.

We probably have two weak candidates, but we don't really know because the way we Democrats talk, and the way the Media talks, we shoot ourselves while they give the Republicans an all-access BackStage Pass.

If Obama and Hillary were not the candidates fighting it out, we would be hearing about other weaknesses:

Let's assume it was Biden vs. Edwards. All we would be reading about is how much Edwards huge home and expensive hair-cuts hurt him among voters.

Hillary has two walls: one, her supporters like Talk Left, who really love her; and one her detractors, like me, who do not love her.

Obama does not do well among many categories of white voters. But Obama can certainly do better among white voters because he has in the past.