This is a question I'm sure the Clinton campaign has been asking for months now. The current state of their two campaigns, during their speeches tonight, have never been so stark; Clinton at a school in Youngstown, Ohio, promising to be ready on "day one", and vowing that she is the most qualified person to be Commander in Chief.

Then the networks cut to Barack Obama, who, contrary to political etiquette, jumped on stage while Senator Clinton was mid-speech. He was in the Toyota Center in Houston filled with 20,000 roaring fans (his estimate). The scene was like a rock concert, and in comparison, made Clinton seem like she was delivering a eulogy rather than a stump. Perhaps she was.

Obama now has major momentum, and the question is how to stop him. I don't raise this question because I dislike Senator Obama, but rather because there is currently high-priced PR talent on both the Clinton and McCain campaigns trying to answer it themselves. What on Earth are they telling their candidates?

Some politicians seem to repel criticism like teflon, but everytime Obama seems to be criticized, even in the most polite forms, it seems to backfire on those levelling the charges. Anytime the Clintons raise even the smallest issue, it is turned around as "old-style" and "divisive" politics, exactly the kind of politics Obama is campaigning against. The criticisms give more fuel to Obama's main argument.

The strategy to attack his oratory seems to have had minimal results, if any. Obama is offering hope, his opponents, if they choose to attack, represent those dark and evil forces that fear change in America. True or not, that seems to be how the electorate sees it.

Consider the lines of attack the Clinton campaign has used on Obama:

1. Bill's famous outbursts in South Carolina, claiming Obama's campaign is a "fairy tale".


2. Hillary drawing a line between speeches that raise hope, and deeds the get results.


3. Obama is not experienced enough to handle complex foreign policy matters in a time of war.


4. Obama's healthcare plan isn't as comprehensive as Clinton's, and would leave 15 million Americans without coverage.

Then there are the smaller issues, like Clinton's claim that Obama plagiarized parts of his speeches, and the McCain campaign making hay with Michelle Obama's comments that this is the first time in her adult life that she's been proud of America.

So what's sticking? I'd argue none of it, although it remains to be seen how much the GOP can milk out of Michelle's words. But as Dick Morris said on Fox News tonight, nobody has ever gained momentum by attacking a candidate's wife.

The New York Times explains that the Clinton campaign knows it has to begin shedding a negative light on Obama:

Clinton advisers, acknowledging that they must change the course of the campaign by defining Mr. Obama in negative terms for voters, said they intended to try to draw sharper contrasts by highlighting what Mrs. Clinton believes are his biggest weaknesses: his readiness to be commander in chief, and his support for a health care plan that would not initially seek to cover all Americans.

Yet Mr. Obama's advisers plan to continue making the case that after nine consecutive victories, many by large margins, Democratic and many independent voters are speaking clearly that Mr. Obama is their choice, and that the party should begin coalescing around him.

Mrs. Clinton's team features some major campaign strategists, such as James Carville and Paul Begala, so it's telling that even they have been unable to make serious dents in Obama's support.

So, PR professionals and armchair quarterbacks, what can be done? As likeable as Obama is, nobody should be getting such a blatant free pass. There are legitimate questions about his experience that critics seem timid to raise, because nobody wants to be seen trying to knee-cap America's potentially first black President. Even one of John McCain's senior advisors, Mark McKinnon, says he can't continue to work for the Senator if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Although, he points out, he'd still vote for McCain:

"100%, ... I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal. I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would be a great race for the country and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

In all of this, I feel slightly badly for John McCain. How is a 71 year old, career civil servant supposed to go up against such a young, brash, eloquent man calling for change in Washington? McCain is not part of Washington's "in crowd", despite portrayals from the Obama campaign. He has also never been a major player in, or supporter of, the Bush administration. But charges from the Obama campaign that he represents the status quo and is yesterday's man, in my opinion, will stick. It's just too bad, because McCain has a 20-year long career in the Senate calling for change. A fine statesman has finally made it to the big dance, only to be up against an historical candidate that will be extremely tough, if not impossible, to beat. Where's John Kerry when you need him?

I rarely (in fact, this is the first time) agree with Rush Limbaugh, but he has often stated that people like Obama because they can project their hopes and dreams on him. Obama represents a blank slate: he has authored no major legislation in the Senate. He has been a part of no major votes. He talks in uplifting phrases, saying there are no red and blue states, only the United States. This is powerful stuff, and it does instill one with confidence and hope going forward. But at some point, the rubber is going to hit the road. Obama will have to make actual decisions, he'll inevitably disagree with his GOP colleagues, and may even make choices that upset some of the very Democrats that are currently supporting him. When the rubber hits the road, what choices will he make? What does he stand for? Where does he draw the line? At what point does he forego cooperation to push forward the principles he believes in? In fact, what exactly does he believe in, besides platitudes and rhetoric? As long as he doesn't have to answer these questions, Obama can continue to be the candidate who supports whatever you support.

So, dear readers, I ask you. How do you campaign against Obama? How do you gain traction for your arguments, and slow his momentum? What is the messaging that will resonate with Americans, and make them reconsider whether Obama is fit and/or ready to be President? I will certainly think more about it, but I welcome responses.

This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here.