One of the worst decisions a candidate can make is to base his or her campaigns headquarters in the Washington DC area, like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and -- yes -- John McCain have done. Apparently, campaigns feel they can tap into the talent pool in DC far better than they would in the hinterlands of Boston, New York, or (and this makes slightly more sense) Arizona.
The problem is two-fold -- one, no one likes DC, so why reinforce that you are such a creature of the Beltway that you can even return home to run your campaign? Obama is in Chicago, of course. Gore moved his HQ from DC to Tennessee in 1999 way too late -- on September 29.
Second of all, you don't attract the most loyal staffers because they aren't forced to sacrifice for their candidates. There's no effort involved in working at another downtown DC office, rather than have to decide to uproot yourself (and maybe your family) to go to work in Chicago or North Carolina or Arkansas. So for the DC-based staffers, it's just another job, not a whole lifestyle decision.
Finally, the DC beltway conventional wisdom is so noxious and wrong, that it does no one any good to live in that bubble for too long. If I had my choice, I'd move the entire DNC to Chicago or Columbus or Kansas City or Omaha or Denver. Get it out of DC and its chattering classes, cocktail parties, and corrupting K Street. With a satellite hookup and studio, and airplanes, there's no reason that it needs to be physically located in that godforsaken city.
In any case, I'm glad to see that at least this year, our campaign is based outside of that cesspool while their campaign is right in the middle of it (and staffed to the hilt with lobbyists as a result).