The pendulum swung; Hillary Clinton is back in contention (see previous post). Hillary won the crucial state of Ohio by a fair margin and even came out ahead in the popular vote in Texas.
Overtly pro-Obama commentators are not really helping their favorite by overlooking the fundamental flaw of the strategy of the Obama campaign.
Obama's mantra: "I was against the Iraq war" is not a bold idea. It's a fact about his past. McCain has pointed this out already, and will do so again. National security -- actually "War on Terror" -- is McCain's big idea. His whole campaign is geared to this one dreary, gloomy 9/11-era Bush concept -- the dogged pursuit of which is almost certain to further weaken the US. But at least it's an idea. McCain stands behind the War on Terror.
What does Obama stand for?
Hillary is now being criticized for having pointed out that both herself "and Senator McCain" have a lifetime of experience that Obama lacks. The substitute for hard-won experience is not "hope," it is a man with a plan. Obama has yet to persuade me that he is actually going to do anything revolutionary once elected. His candidacy remains a far cry from the promise of Ronald Reagan back in 1980.
If I was Obama, I would presume the upcoming election will really be about the economy; that jobs matter more than Iraq; and I would fiercely define "national security" around the economic issues. Obama would be well advised to take a brave stand on the most contentious issues of our day.