Following Wisconsin, a tired truism began to circulate in Democratic circles: Sen. Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee, and Sen. Hillary Clinton should bow out for the good of the party. A string of confident and impressive electoral victories had vaulted Mr. Obama to frontrunner status. Wisconsin seemed an apt bellwether; his victory here, amid an electorate that heavily favored Ms. Clinton, seemed to indicate his ability to cut into Ms. Clinton?s base and appeal to independents and Republicans.

As a once outspoken critic of Mr. Obama?s, I was treated via Facebook, text messaging and e-mail to myriad reminders of my previous columns insisting upon his inexperience and hinting at his unelectability. Students were excited, pundits were convinced: Barack Obama was about to seal the deal in Texas, and maybe even in Ohio.

Yet the calls for Ms. Clinton to pull out were premature. She outperformed the polls in Ohio and Texas, and Republicans and independents indicated a surprising penchant for Ms. Clinton. Contrary to what the pundits told us, Mr. Obama didn?t need to shoot himself in the foot, or make the big mistake that would reverse the trends in polls. No, Mr. Obama didn?t have to do much of anything to derail the momentum his campaign had built up.

So what did he have to do? Start losing like Hillary? Well, at least make mistakes like her.

For every screwy moment the Clinton campaign had, the Obama campaign seems now to have one of their own. How did Mr. Obama?s NAFTA-centric message fail him so miserably in Ohio? Chalk that one up to a chatty economic advisor. Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago economics professor and chief Obama economic advisor, took it upon himself to ? allegedly ? reassure our Canadian neighbors that Mr. Obama?s determination to renegotiate NAFTA to better protect the American worker was only for ?political positioning.? Disavowals and accusations of misrepresentation ensued.

A chatty surrogate sticking his foot in his mouth? Sounds like the over-the-topic rhetoric that characterized Ms. Clinton?s surrogates in this year?s earlier contests.

And what of Barack?s rock, his fiercely intelligent wife, Michelle Obama? A fairly effective campaigner, Ms. Obama herself became a liability as a nascent conservative distrust of Mr. Obama came into full bloom as she uttered the fateful words, ?For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.? The media had a field day with her statement, much like they did when another candidate?s spouse, former president Bill Clinton, compared Mr. Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson following Mr. Obama?s victory in South Carolina.

And what of the candidate himself? In the debates after Wisconsin, Mr. Obama successfully painted himself as the wittier of the two. And there was Hillary, effectively shooting herself in the foot with petty swipes at the media, but at the same time reminding voters of her ability to enunciate policy far better than Mr. Obama could. And while Ms. Clinton?s boo-eliciting ?change you can Xerox? comment in the Texas debate almost pushed her beyond the edge of irrelevancy, Mr. Obama?s non-plagiarism of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick cast doubt upon the authenticity of his rhetoric, especially when coupled with the alleged statements to the Canadian government by his campaign.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign hurled the kitchen sink, garbage disposal and toilet at Mr. Obama, parrying calls for Ms. Clinton?s tax records with calls for information on the ties between corrupt political fundraiser Tony Rezko.

Links to seedy political types? I thought that was the Clintons.

Despite the portents of doom, Obama supporters still insisted that their candidate would easily win in Texas, and might even eke out a victory in Ohio. After all, Mr. Obama always outperforms polls, right? But what those supporters forgot was that many of Mr. Obama?s most impressive victories came in the primaries and caucuses following Super Tuesday, where a cash-strapped and ill-prepared Clinton campaign left Mr. Obama to run almost unopposed in a number of states.

Mr. Obama is now facing a resurgent Hillary Clinton, and a media that is no longer interested in maintaining his aura of closest-thing-to-perfection-in-politics. His massive campaign is starting to have headaches elicited from garrulous though well-intentioned surrogates, much like the Clinton campaign. And he?s now the frontrunner, much like Clinton was. As this campaign season has taught us, it?s no longer advantageous to be the frontrunner. Just ask Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mr. Obama?s current opponent, Hillary Clinton.

As the frontrunner spotlight continues to highlight the rough edges of Mr. Obama and his campaign, we are, for the first time, beginning to see his campaign in the same light we were shown Ms. Clinton?s. But the good news ? for those of us who still believe he should be our president ? is that if he can weather this storm through Pennsylvania and beyond, he?s about as vetted as can be before the Republicans get a hold of him.

And if you think pictures of Mr. Obama wearing Somali dress is a low blow, wait until Karl Rove and the gang get a hold of our candidate.

?

Gerald Cox ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics.

?