I'm not sure if I understand your question/point.

he said this:

("I would have dropped out if I were her")

Because I don't remember him ever saying anything like that. Are you entirely certain you didn't make it up?

1. Planning
She planned only till Super Tuesday

2. Money
She was out-raised

3. Message
She started her campaign with a message of experience in a cycle where change was more forceful

4. Personnel
Honestly, she surrounded herself with quite a few scumbags

5. Certain element of Clinton fatigue
The Clintons (collectively) are known, and have done some good work, but also carry some serious bags (rightly or wrongly), and for many it has been too much Clinton (combined), too often. Personally I think Bill should have been much more low key, much less involved, but that's just MO.

6. Organizing
Came late to the game in getting the ground troops fully mobilized (see #1)

She could have won it by correcting a few of the above things early in the game, she did have a huge natural advantage, but that is all water under the bridge...

There has been some speculation that if she had run the campaign that she ran the last 6 weeks, from the start she would have won. That's possible, but I think these last six weeks where pretty much set in stone, the only surprise being SD, and where more of a matter of primary timing and geographic/demographic advantage then campaign style.

One could play this game the other way.  Hillary Clinton won in these states:

1) those where she could rack up huge majorities in Appalachian countries (eg. OH, PA, WV, KY, TN, though this wasn't enough for her to pull ahead in VA, MD, and NC, where she won these counties by similar margins);

2) the home field advantage (NY, AK, and, really, NJ, because it shares a media market with NY).

3) the deeply flawed primaries of FL and MI;

4) states where she could mobilize a Latino vote which mostly went for her (CA, AZ, NM, TX, PR), though their numbers were never large enough to give her big victories (save PR).

5) Clinton and Obama split the New England states (she got MA, NH, and RI, he got VT, CT, and ME).

The above counts for every victory she won save two states (OK, SD), but so what?  It doesn't capture most of what happened during this election (the three big dividing lines, really, were age (45 y.o.), income ($50k), and gender, and of these three the most important was probably age.

Could also suggest it's silly to simply dismiss the caucus states (suggesting, as it does, that Obama's popularity in the upper Midwest, "Rockylachia", and Pacific northwest, is fictious, something no one really believes).  

There's also the question of open vs. closed primaries (Obama clearly benefitted from the second, Clinton the first), and the Limbaugh voters (Clinton's supporters will deny this to their deaths, but this was a real phenomenon which might have added 5-10% to her totals in some states and started in the OH/TX primaries).

But most of this is just an exercise in trivializing the victories won by the candidate you didn't support.  The election is over.

I don't believe that going for an early kill was a mistake by Clinton. It could have worked and is a strategic error only known by hindsite, and thus not really a mistake.

Nor do I think that her experience message was a mistake. Again only by hindsite can we say that she should have used a "Fight for the middleclass" message. Many people suggest that she should have used a "change" message. But because she is Bill Clinton's husband, she would have lost credibility using the message.

These are the true Clinton mistakes:

(1) Not objecting to the Michigan and Florida punishment at the onset. Those states were tailored made for Clinton. Clinton's early own polling showed that she ran strong with Latinos and older people. It also showed that she ran strong in the Northeastern industrial belt. If she had objected, the DNC would have decided to strip Florida and Michigan only one-half of their delegates, forcing the candidates to spend resources in those states. Turnout in Florida was only about half of the other states, making it likely she would have won the state by 600,000 votes if voters knew the primary results would count. Thus, she would have won the popular vote metric outright. Early wins in Michigan and Florida would have also stemmed Obama's momentum. Although momentum was not important after the Wisconsin primary, it was important through the early primaries, making it likely that she would have won Connecticut and Missouri on Super Tuesday.

(2) Not hiring Harold Ickes to plan strategy for caucus states, and Jerome Armstrong to plan for an internet strategy. Harold Ickes helped write the DNC rules and would have told Clinton to spend more on the ground game in caucus states than on TV ads in Iowa. Although she still would have lost caucus states by considerable margins, she would have closed the gap enough to make 10-5 delegate splits into 9-6 delegate splits. That would have closed the delegate gap by two delegates for every 15 delegates allocated in caucus states. Armstrong would have told Clinton to network on myspace and facebook. Although Clinton's coalition isn't as computer savy as Obama supporters, she still could have used the internet better.  She would have gotten more bang for the buck and not have gotten into debt.

(3) Not learning George Allen's lesson about Youtube. Candidate's can no longer get away with white lies such as being under fire in Bosnia. In this campaign, the Clintons needed to be extra sensative about race. Bill Clinton's statement "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina," may have doomed the Clinton campaign.

Without these mistakes, Clinton probably wins a hard fought nomination fight. Although being a Clinton put her in position to run for president, Democrats in general frown on "nepotism." (For example, George W. Bush would have never gotten the Democratic Party nomination had he been a liberal or moderate Democrat). Thus, winning the Democratic Party nomination was never going to be easy for her despite the early polling.