First, I disagree with you almost completely about McCain.  He is an awful candidate who is going to struggle mightily when the Dems unite behind a candidate (and they will).  One rally, presumably in Little Rock, with Hillary hugging Barak will send McCain into a minimum 5 point deficit.

Beyond that the fact that he has so little money he is pathetically challenging Obama to accept public financing with him (despite the fact that he is blatantly violating campaign finance law according to the Republican chairman of the FEC), McCain is living and dying on the media having no interest in actually covering anything he says and does.

It will only take one mainstream reporter (not talk show) on a high profile outlet to begin the onslaught and considering that the only thing these clowns like better than free ribs is having that breakthrough story that gives them tenure McCain is playing a very dangerous game.

Not that his senile ass is aware of any of that.

About red states not mattering that is true but not because they are unwinnable.  They are perfectly winnable.  Most elections are not decided by fractions of a percent in the deciding state.  It is very likely someone will get 350+ EVs.  Maybe even 450+.  Obviously this would mean flipping a bunch of states.  That is how it usually works, just not in 2000 and 2004.  

From 1920-1996 there were 20 elections.  Four were decided by fewer than 200 EVs.  (1976 by 57, 1968 by 110, 1960 by 84 and 1948 by 114).  It is more likely than not that some solid red states will go blue or vice versa.

The reason the Oklahomas and Utahs don't matter is that by the time the Dems win those states they will have won all the tossup states and won the election anyway.  Playing the Dem nomination game to improve your chances in Indiana is playing for a massive landslide, not playing to win the White House.

Also, I have never understood the logic that if one primary candidate wins a state they are more likely to win that state in the general.  It seems to me since primaries are usually decided by party loyalists and close states in the general are decided by crossover other party voters and independents there would be little correlation between relative primary strength to the other candidate and strength in the general.  Theoretically the party loyalists (who tend to vote in primaries) will vote for either one.

Anyway, that said, the states to watch, in my humble opinion, are the Southwest states of NM, CO and NV.  All  look good for the Dems and would allow us to win without OH and FL.

In the midwest, MI and MN have to stay blue but they have been more dem than the country since JFK won.  MI and WI have to go Dem as well.  This seems likely barring a nationwide shift to the right.  MI and WI were wooed by Reagan but have been blue since 92.  Also the area is ravaged by the economy which should hurt the GOP there.

You will hear a lot of talk about OH and FL but I am not sure they matter that much.  Florida will go red in a 50/50 election and Ohio is a true tossup.  

Ohio is fascinating.  What will Buckeyes vote against? Will they decide their vote on revulsion of the massive GOP corruption in the state and the horrific economy or will their racist tendencies cause them to ignore all that to stop a man based on the color of his skin.  Ohio is a microcosm of the entire GOP strategy.  I do not believe the dems have to have it to win but the GOP absolutely does and it will probably be the most interesting state to watch. 

Oh, and if McCain has to spend a single penny running ads in Texas, he is on his way to getting Mondaled.  Don't believe it can happen?  Beware the brown, my GOP firends.