Democrats Should Not Be Surprised the Untested, Inexperienced, Ultraliberal Barack Obama Is Lagging

This falls into the "You heard it here first" category. It also falls into the "Ho, hum: Should we be surprised?" category.

Let's see. The party that's predicted to make significant gains in Congress and should be winning the White House in a walk (due to the retirement of an unusually unpopular president heading the other party) acts surprised because the party's presidential nominee is in a precarious position in the national polls. Perhaps that is because party elders and primary voters and caucusgoers fell in love with an unknown with extremely liberal views. Perhaps it is because they nominated a freshman senator with no legislative accomplishments to his name. Anyway, take a read:

From Sunday's New York Times:

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning. These Democrats—15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders—say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

I'm not saying Obama's going to lose. I'm not saying McCain is going to win. I'm saying when a party nominates for president an untested, unvetted, inexperienced candidate, it should not be surprised when that candidate starts to lag. Most people learn in their teens or 20s not to fall too hard in love with someone you haven't known for a reasonable amount of time. It's apparently a lesson Democrats have yet to learn.