John Judis comes out to say what only conservatives have been observing for weeks now: the Obama campaign is “floundering.” The problems include the VP pick:

I realize now that Obama would have been better off had he chosen Hillary Clinton. Of course, he might have faced a nightmare in January 2009 with Bill and Hillary in the White House, but at least he would have been more assured of making it there. As it is, he may not be able to count on Clinton’s fundraisers in the fall, he may not be able to count on all of her voters, and states that might have been in play with the two Clintons in tow–Florida, Arkansas, and Missouri–probably won’t be.

The strategy has also been misguided and wildly overconfident–spending time and money in unwinnable states. But added to this is his appalling performance on foreign policy:

Add these results of overconfidence to Obama’s Berlin speech (which made an otherwise serious foreign trip look like a political stunt to impress the rubes back home) and his flip-flop response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia (he went from apportioning blame equally to calling for NATO to admit Georgia, which would likely commit the U.S. to military intervention on its behalf), and you have some of the reasons why Obama has faltered this summer.

You have to keep in mind that liberals and Obama supporters denied any of this was problematic and sneered at conservative commentators who made these very observations. That was then. But this is now.

Where Judis has problems is in defining what Obama should say now. It is easy to advise what Obama should not do:

To begin with, that means Obama cannot run as a Huey Long-style red meat populist. That’s not who he is, anyway. And in making promises, he has to be careful to avoid endorsing programs that could be interpreted as irresponsible acts of tax-and-spend liberalism. He can propose a detailed plan for national health insurance once he is elected. For the moment, he should avoid anything that appears to require new taxes, or that appears to send a lot of money to inner-cities.

But what Obama should do is harder. And here I think Judis falters, suggesting in effect a slogan in the vein of “putting people first.” That might do for a candidate who isn’t battling against an attack that he is all fluff. When your opponent accuses you of only having one-liners and lacking gravitas it generally is best not to fall back on catchphrases without substance. And Judis does recognize the dilemma:

Obama ran his primary campaign around the slogan “change we can believe in.” That helped burnish his outsider image against Clinton, but it doesn’t work as well against McCain (who, fairly or not, is still identified with outsiderdom and change), and it doesn’t provide the context for any economic program. This has been clear for months, but the Obama campaign has yet to provide an alternative.

Perhaps Obama should go back to basics: what is wrong with the country and what in particular he is going to do differently. Explain he is opposed to offshore drilling, in favor of raising the capital gains and payroll taxes, wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, thinks the U.N. (veto? what veto?) should be engaged in taking Russia to task for invading its neighbor, opposes free trade agreements and is adopting Hillarycare as his own.

Not very attractive? Sounds like warmed over 1970’s liberalism? Aye, there’s the rub. When Obama gets down to the granular level needed to convince voters he is more than New Age fluff it gets tricky. What he actually is offering doesn’t sound like a platform that has won elections in the past.

It is an interesting dilemma and in a sense reassuring. It is hard to run a successful campaign, even one against an incumbent party in dire straits, without being forthright about who you are, what you believe and what you plan on doing. Explaining all of that is not Obama’s strong suit–which is why hope springs eternal among Republicans for a stunning upset in the fall.