I agree that the nine states Bush won by single digits are very attainable, but I think we should steer clear of "targeting" them in the way he describes. Sure, we'd love to "pump resources into state parties and concentrate advertising and voter registration efforts there", but isn't that where we got off track last election - by focusing on a specific-state strategy and losing out on the overall vision?
Wouldn't it be preferable to try to articulate a broad vision that incorporates people everywhere so we need to do less targeting, and more convincing about what liberal principles mean.
Update: I heartily agree with this idea:
For example, to help parents juggle the demands of work and raising their kids, Democrats ought to champion paid parental leave policies as well as flextime arrangements with employers. But they should also talk more about reducing teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births, which have led to an expansion of single-parent families beset by poverty, welfare dependence, and other social ills.
And this one:
Just as religious advocates of the "Social Gospel" infused early 20th century progressivism with moral fervor, Democrats should couch their social initiatives in the language of faith and morality. The sad truth is that since Clinton's departure, Democrats have had little to say about growing poverty and inequality in America. Surely, they are moral issues no less than abortion and gay marriage, and they give Democrats an opportunity to speak unambiguously of right and wrong.