Stanley Fish is always interesting, even when he is wrong-headed, and for my money that’s pretty often. Last Sunday’s Think Again blog in The New York Times is no exception. I don’t agree with most of what Fish says about Obama’s present fortune in the campaign for the democratic nomination, or with Fish’s main argument that McCain will beat Obama easily in the general election. But consider this comment about how the Clinton campaign has created opportunities for McCain:

Indeed, every criticism Clinton has made of Obama – he lacks experience, he is all flourish and no substance, he gives shoot-from-the-hip answers to serious questions – falls into McCain’s lap, ready for instant use in the general election.

Here, Fish has it dead right. Obama is being double-teamed. And the question in my mind is why. I don’t think there’s any vast right-wing conspiracy to defeat Obama. Exit polls after the Texas primary have shown that fifty-two percent of Republican crossover votes were cast for Obama, against Rush Limbaugh’s advice. But I think it’s a fair question why Clinton’s campaign against Obama so neatly parallels McCain’s, and why Clinton seems to be willing to give McCain talking points to use against their common opponent.

Perhaps part of the answer is that Obama is their comon opponent. He has bracketed Clinton and Republicans together as practitioners of the old politics. And maybe it’s true that Clinton is, in fact, a practitioner of the old politics, especially of the smash mouth, do-anything-to-win politics of Tom Delay and Carl Rove. But I think it’s also true that Clinton is running to the right of Obama, particularly with respect to national security and foreign policy issues, where she continues to claim particular expertise.

I don’t think Obama has challenged Clinton enough on this score. It’s an opportunity for him to bring the connection with Bill Clinton back into the campaign, by asking what foreign policy experience Clinton has that uniquely qualifies her to answer the red phone in the middle of the night. If the answer is that she gained privileged experience as first lady, the question becomes, how was that so? Or how was it appropriately so? Of course Bill Clinton’s, “We’re back!” whizbang, and the idea of a co-presidency may appeal to more voters than I think it does; but Bill, himself, backed away from talking about it pretty fast.

I’m thinking that Obama is right to go after Clinton about her experience now, just as she has gone after him about his eloquence. He should keep up the pressure about the tax returns; though if there’s something crooked there it’s likely to be too complicated to make good campaign fodder. But he should really go after her about what she has claimed makes her unique — and then go after her judgment again.

Michael Gerson’s column today imagines (as a thought experiment) Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office as a sort of black comedy of foreign policy errors. After Obama’s imagined meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Gerson licks his chops over the following scenario:

The New York Post runs a front-page picture of the Obama-Ahmadinejad handshake under the headline “Surrender Summit!” The story notes another of Obama’s historic firsts: the first American president to meet with a Holocaust denier. The Israeli prime minister publicly asks, “Why is the American president meeting with a leader who calls us ‘filthy bacteria’ and threatens to wipe us ‘off the map?'” Tens of thousands protest in Tel Aviv, carrying signs reading “Chamberlain Lives!”

Of course, this and several other imagined gaffes will never take place, Gerson opines, because “Sitting behind the Resolute desk is a sobering experience that makes foolish campaign promises seem suddenly less binding.” The observation leaves Gerson in a position to reflect that “it is a bad sign for a candidate when the best we can hope is for him to violate his commitments.” This is the same Michael Gerson who only a few weeks ago extolled the Obama movement as “the return of idealism” and said further that “The day an African American stands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol — built with the labor of slaves — and takes the oath of office will be a moment of blinding, hopeful brightness.”

All hopefulness aside, it was inevitable that the shine would wear off Obama’s fame long before any inauguration — inevitable that the rough and tumble of negative campaigning would humanize and humble him. But I, for one, remain hopeful that this young man will rise to the occasion as he has each time in past months when some adversity has slowed his progress, and continue to persuade us that the United States of America can still become the country Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy dreamed of.

Clinton’s victories in Texas and Ohio have allowed her to renew her claim to entitlement. She can now pursue this claim through the August convention, perhaps, and even claim the nomination by persuading a sufficient majority of superdelegates to join her, especially if she wins Pennsylvania and continues to add to her pledged delegate total.

Thus, Obama can lose even if he wins, and that prospect sharpens the difference between his campaign and Clinton’s. Obama really is campaigning for national unity, or failing that for a sufficient majority to claim a mandate for change in the way Washington does business.

I hope he will continue to do so.

I knew that Clinton’s attacks on my guy would get nasty, but I had no idea. Nor did it occur to me that Clinton would deliberately create a sound bite that could be used against Obama by Republicans. But here she is, saying that if she can’t win McCain would be second best and calling Obama a fraud in the bargain.

And too, it looks as though the Obama NAFTA scandal, so called, is the real fraud.There’s been a wonderful flap going on about it in the Canadian parliament.

Of course, if Clinton wins . . . , which obviously she still plans to do . . . .