Peter Beinart would have us believe that the Obama boom is due to Iraq being less of a factor in peoples' determination when choosing a candidate. This is no doubt a factor, though I'm not sure it's a significant one. Democrats still hate the war and want it to end. The situation has become less urgent because less people are dying, but Democrats still want out nonetheless. To the extent that Obama seems more likely to remove the troops in Iraq--which might be because he doesn't have to burden himself with appearing ultra-tough in order to confound gender tropes--he has an advantage over Hillary. Still, if the focus pivots toward domestic issues, doesn't that help Clinton more than the other candidates? Instead of getting prodded about her Iraq vote and Lieberman-Kyl, she can disfavorably compare Obama's healthcare plan with her own. Isn't that better than having the sensitive spot of your record under scrutiny?
No, this doesn't account for it. And I don't really think that she's choking because of her voting record. I think it gets at something far deeper than roll call votes. One of the greatest assets Hillary's campaign had from the beginning was the one that was also her greatest weakness--I don't want to drop the b-word here out of respect for women, but a lot of Democrats were enraged at John Kerry's "high-minded" (i.e. wimpy) reaction to the Swift Boat rumors, and they (and I) felt that Clinton would be able to fight back against such things. Hell, she could probably start some of that stuff on Giuliani, no? That advantage, one of the relative few that she could have claimed earlier in the process, is largely gone now. She's proven so ineffective at attacking Obama that one of her underlings had to retract a stupid attack earlier today. Obama, on the other hand, has proven to be quite effective at parrying and thrusting, though he hasn't initiated too many harsh attacks against her, perhaps because he knows that there's still much affection for Mrs. Clinton among Democrats, and such unprovoked attacks would just generate bad blood among his general election base.
A lot of people seem to refer to his naivete, but it seems to me that Obama has run exactly the right kind of campaign here. He's running as a reforming outsider while keeping the beltway crowd happy by mentioning Social Security reform and bipartisanship. He's an unabashed liberal who makes sure to tell conservatives that he understands and respects their viewpoints and just disagrees with them. He's managed to check off so many boxes on the candidate checklist: new ideas, unifier, less divisive political style, plus he happens to be a fantastic orator and a charismatic, likeable guy. He's even opened a bit of a tiff with Paul Krugman over an incredibly wonky element of his healthcare proposal. If he gets some of the voices on the left to criticize him, he can point to that as evidence of moderation, then just enact liberal policies upon entering the Oval Office. Embodying bipartisanship might seem misguided, unless one considers that Obama might be trying to set himself as Mr. Reasonable Dealmaker, associating himself with that trait so that he can more effectively blame Republicans if he can't make the bipartisan wheel spin. And as far as the primary goes, he's managed to undercut some of Hillary Clinton's most fundamental advantages while only strengthening himself. Now, admittedly, some of this could just be luck, and maybe it's not this strategic. Still, Obama couldn't be in a better position at this point in the game: ahead in Iowa and South Carolina, pretty much tied in New Hampshire, and gaining nationally. It can't all be due to luck.
