A few people have responded to my post this morning on Barack Obama and argued that the problem is not his toughness or hunger for the nomination but his strategy which focuses on national unity. But I think my post must not have been clear (and no that's not meant facetiously). Because I don't think this is really what I said.

Ezra Klein writes ...

Ben Smith is correct to put aside the question of whether Obama possesses the ruthlessness required to run for president and instead focus on his strategy, "which hinges on a message of 'unity' that is as much in line with polling and message-testing as with his personality," and which has handcuffed him into an above-the-fray vagueness.

I suspect this gets the order wrong, and that the 'strategy' is rooted in the personality. I hope I'm wrong about this. But I'm starting to suspect that I'm not. Ezra goes on to say, "Obama, of course, could have defined the new politics however he wanted, from a focus on transformative policy to a willingness to call out the DC establishment. Instead, he let the Clinton camp define his message in a way advantageous to them." But why'd that happen exactly? Was it really the strategy that got Obama to let Clinton run circles around him? I'm not sure I get that.

I'm getting the sense that it's a little more that Obama thinks what he's selling is so choice that people will come to it rather than bringing it to them. And that can lead to a kind of campaign passivity and fuzziness, notwithstanding confidence and scrappiness.

Genuinely hope I'm wrong on this; really starting to think I'm not.