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.