TPM Reader GS responds ...

I disagree with your analysis that Obama and Edwards need to provide some distinct policy difference and base their offense on drawing distinctions on those issues. Voters simply don't care much about issues. Voters care about how they feel about the candidate--whether they feel they share the same values with the candidate (this is why the would-I-have-a-beer-with-him question has loomed so large in presidential politics while whether a universal healthcare proposal has a mandate is relegated to an afterthought). Then they care about whether they feel that the candidate will follow through and act on those values. This is why questions of integrity and constancy loom so large. Then some voters care about some single issues. Issues come into play when candidates can use them to illustrate their values. Democrats have long held a large lead on the issues that concern most Americans, yet have lost election after election. More importantly, once you draw a distinction from Hillary, she will try to make it seem like she is on board with your plan and blur any distinctions you can make. All signs point to a more successful strategy of distinguishing on Clinton's values and integrity. It is much more likely to be successful to attack on those points because that is what people care about and there is a pre-existing story line about the Clintons that can be used in this effort. I encourage you to talk to Drew Westen and to read the Political Brain--I am shamelessly stealing his ideas.

Many have made the argument about what I think Marc Schmit has called the Dems policy literalism. And it's a point I agree with. Strongly. But saying shared values doesn't make it so. And it's very easy to get led astray by a lot of jargon and nonsense. I probably should have been more clear. The point is not to beat Hillary on the issues. But if Obama's angle is to show he's more principled, less likely to sway in the political winds and so forth, he needs to ILLUSTRATE IT and not just assert it.

And that's basically what I've seen so far.

On the issue of the pre-existing story line, I don't buy it. Not as a sufficient vehicle for Obama to take the nomination. The main reason is that the Clintons -- both of them -- are really well known to Democratic voters. And that story-line is really well-known to Democratic voters. And with both of these being the case, she's crushing Obama in nationwide polls and doing pretty well in most individual primary states.

I find it very implausible that Obama's going to change people's verdict on this essential question about Hillary over the next couple months when she's such a known commodity.

Relatedly, I think this ignores the fact that many of these arguments, or versions of them, have been made for years by Republicans. And that creates a big hurdle in and of itself for selling them to a strongly-identified Democratic primary electorate.

In any case, going back to the point of the original post, Obama is starting to go on the attack against Hillary. But I agree with Reed that he's not in any meaningful sense on the offensive. Hillary's taken some real hits over the last few weeks. But her campaign still maintains the initiative. And it's being run on her team's script.