It is very common for political junkies to write political obituaries before the deceased is actually dead. This has resulted in many cases where, to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the politician's demise were greatly exaggerated.

However, I will engage in the same "prebituary" folly here - with the 2008 Presidential election, no less. Yes, there are three weeks to go. However, even if the election swings completely back in favor of Arizona Sen. John McCain, there will be three great stories of this election.

Those stories will be the incompetence of Obama's opponents in managing their campaigns, the remarkable planning and discipline of Obama's campaign, and the amazing luck Obama has enjoyed this election season.

While all of these stories are linked in various ways, they deserve to be compiled in one place.

The Incompetence of Obama's Opponents

This discussion starts with the Democratic primary, and the campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton's advantages ($120 million war chest, 150+ superdelegate endorsements, and the 1992 & 1996 campaign veterans) made her the overwhelming favorite as soon as she announced her candidacy in 2006. She was polling at 40% - in a field with six other candidates.

So, how did she go from that dominant position to second place? A two-word summary might be simply "horrendous management". A brief stroll down Jabroni Drive might explain how Clinton failed to get to The People's Champ Boulevard.

Campaign manager replaced? Check.

Chief pollster and chief strategist demoted? Check.

Meddling ex-President spouse? Check.

Myopic focus on news cycles while failing to drive any overall message? Check.

To be fair, the Hillary Clinton that appeared in early March was a significantly improved campaigner from the Sybil-like hodgepodge she offered in January and February. This was primarily because she found a populist, underdog message that really resonated with her audiences.

That begs one question. Why, in a year where incumbents are booking movers en masse for the third week of January, would the candidate who basically had the stage to herself for almost the entirety of 2007 choose to run as the "experience" candidate?

Fast forward to today's McCain campaign, which makes the Clinton '08 campaign look as regular as the US Naval Observatory atomic clock by comparison. Having observed the mistakes Clinton made in running against Obama, the McCain campaign not only reproduced those mistakes, but then added some world-class schmuckery all its own.

Campaign manager replaced - twice?  Check.

Absolute indecision on how to run against Obama - despite having had months to consider a strategy? Check.

Complete failure to develop even the slightest hint of an economic strategy? Check.

Myopic focus on winning news cycles while failing to drive any overall message other than POW? Check.

GOP strategist Ed Rollins codifies McCain's missteps quite nicely in a recent CNN commentary article. Rollins also briefly touches on another similarity between the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he doesn't discuss enough. Both candidates waited until late in their campaigns to pull out the negative advertising - after Obama had been able to get ahead of the slime slinging with his own personal appeal.

As if all this repeat blundering weren't enough, the blunders McCain has made since the end of the Democratic National Convention are already being trumpeted as cautionary tales for generations to come.

Here's a recipe for a 2008 Maverick Sour. Start with picking an unvetted running mate with no record of academic or policy achievement. Then, issue multiple contradictory statements on the rapidly tanking economy. Pretend to suspend your campaign just long enough to torpedo an emerging bipartisan deal. Openly lie to a major late-night talk show host about why you cancelled on him, ensuring weeks of ridicule. Resume your campaign and start talking about a '60s radical and lower capital-gains taxes. Let your pitbull running mate off her leash - sans rabies shots. Start inciting hatred at your political events - while trashing a civil rights hero for accurately stating that your campaign is echoing strains of people like George Wallace. Mix with a large dollop of economic incompetence.

Stir for nine weeks. Pour into a glass rimmed with POW sea salt. Enjoy with a turncoat Democratic Senator friend in the library of one of your eight homes on November 5 as you ponder how you lost the election to a first-term Senator.

The Planning and Discipline of Obama's Campaign

The Obama campaign will go down as perhaps the most farsighted Presidential campaign in history. The campaign has shown a relentless focus since day one - stay largely positive, control media access, step on rumor mongering, and advertise aggressively.

The top of the Obama campaign - manager David Plouffe, chief strategist David Axelrod, communications director Robert Gibbs, and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett - has been rock-solid and leak-proof. Bill Burton and Dan Pfeiffer have been excellent at shaping the press releases, which are a large part of the reason Obama is now profiled as being steady and solid in times of crisis.

How deep was the planning? Consider that the Obama campaign fwas already focused on how to win a single extra delegate in Nevada during the primary - back in early 2007! It is here that Jeff Berman, the Obama director of delegate selection, truly shone. Berman's understanding of the Byzantine rules of delegate selection absolutely outclassed the "expertise" of Mark Penn, Harold Ickes and the rest of the Clinton advisers combined.

What about the Obama message? Yes, Obama was criticized in many quarters for being too cautious, too staged, too stiff, too regimented. So, it's ironic that his campaign's almost surreal focus on driving a message of intellect and change is now reaping the benefits. Who would have thought that merely emphasizing competence would be enough to derail Hillary Clinton AND John McCain?

The single biggest message change Obama has made in 22 months? He went from "Change We Can Believe In" to "The Change We Need" after the Democratic National Convention. It always helps when you can tell just one story, over and over.  Even in his major policy shifts, on items like offshore drilling and FISA, Obama's overall message remained constant.

The Obama campaign has always operated on multiple levels in two critical areas: fundraising and GOTV operations. This ability to operate on multiple levels - while still maintaining message discipline - highlights Obama's ability to organize, manage and grow an operation.

The campaign has always trumpeted its small-donor funds, which are ridiculously large. However, the campaign also very quietly welcomed big-dollar donors, and Obama never lost sight of the money bombs they could produce. One need only recall the $11 million Obama raised in Hollywood - in a single night.

The Obama campaign has rightly focused on canvassing and signing up voters in places where a Democrat - especially a Black Democrat - should historically have no business even campaigning, much less winning. The campaign has hardly ignored Black voters, though.

On the contrary, Obama's been focusing targeted GOTV and registration advertising in Black media and in Black communities. Planning like this is a big reason why McCain must now defend even blood-red Georgia, where 37% of early voting has come from Black voters.

The Luck of the Obama Campaign

The Cuban chess legend, Jose Raul Capablanca, was once pressed to explain a game he managed to win despite having a horrible position. Capablanca's eventual answer: "A good player is always lucky."

Certainly, Obama plays the game of politics as well as anyone. However, he's certainly had his share of luck - from Blair Hull's primary challenge self-destructing in 2004, to Jack Ryan's general-election Senate campaign imploding in the same year. This year, though, Obama has benefited from a number of fortuitous events. Let's look at some of them.

The New Hampshire primary. It's hard to look back on this as a "lucky" event for Obama. A slightly deeper look, however, might support this conclusion. Remember: Obama had just won the Iowa caucuses, and had a lead in New Hampshire. If he hadn't said, "You're likeable enough, Hillary", Obama probably wins New Hampshire. This would likely have ended Clinton's campaign...which would have meant Obama does NOT go through the primary crucible that he did.

Obama would not have been forced to develop his debating skills, his ability to handle negative press firestorms, his policy positions or his campaign operations. Hillary Clinton winning New Hampshire allowed her to go on to Super Tuesday and beyond - and, in the process, she gave Obama a trial by fire that he'd never experienced in his political career.

The primary schedule. This was not something that either Clinton or Obama controlled. However, notice the states that Obama won during his 11-primary streak in February were states that he was likely to do well in anyway. That February momentum - and the stockpile of delegates he built up - was THE difference in the Democratic primary. Obama was never going to win states like Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania in a primary. Berman's delegate strategy was to hold margins down in those states. It was much easier to do that coming off 11 straight wins.

The economy. There's no question that, historically, Democrats do better when the economy is issue #1. There's no question that Obama's superior preparation and understanding on that issue gives him a huge edge over McCain, who's still refining his economic plan - three weeks before the election!

There is a good argument to be made that Obama's recent boom has happened in large part because people are looking for economic security. However, the economy could have tanked any time in the last year. Now, consider this. Who would have benefited more from an economic collapse during the Democratic primary? That's right - Hillary Clinton.

She was far more trusted on the economy than Obama was, in large part because she'd developed very detailed plans for virtually every situation. Even the gas tax holiday - which was a horrible idea, in my humble opinion - saw Clinton with a plan for implementation and financing.

The country's focus at that time was on Iraq, rather than the economy. Obama had a pronounced edge over Clinton on the Iraq War, which he rode to that same delegate margin he held through the June 3 primaries. If the current financial crisis had happened in January or February, it would not be difficult to imagine Clinton having a big edge over Obama circa January.

Conclusion

"Fortune favors the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur

Barack Obama has enjoyed good fortune throughout his Presidential run. However, that fortune would be meaningless if he didn't have the organization and plan in place to take maximum advantage in opponents' errors. That part is not luck - it's design.

And, in the quiet of their well-appointed living rooms, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain will spend many a night, each staring at a crackling fire in the hearth. They'll be wondering how a man with half a term in the Senate and no pre-existing national political network could have upstaged them. The answer can be found in the perfect storm of their incompetence, Obama's intelligence and historical happenstance.