Last week, Alex Beam of The Boston Globe offered a gloomy assessment of Obama '08. He wrote:

[F]rankly, the people who've ponied up $4,600 for Obama in this election cycle might as well have piled the money on the kitchen table and set fire to it. Or donated it to the Audubon Society, which has a lot better chance of being in business a year from now than Obama's presidential campaign.

Beam does not get into many specifics, but he speaks to a growing sense that Obama does not have the right stuff. Most of this sense seems to stem from Obama's recent attacks of foot-in-mouth -- most recently, his 10,000-dead-in-Kansas gaffe.

John Hinderaker over at Powerline sums up the sense thusly:

This is just one of a series of gaffes by Obama that raise serious questions about his ability to compete at a high political level. The lack of common sense suggested by his gullibility in regard to the Greensburg tornado can perhaps be chalked up to lack of experience; but that's the point.

I think it is too early to draw this conclusion. Mr. Hinderaker is correct to observe that Obama's gaffes are either due to ignorance (a "lack of experience") or obtuseness (a "lack of common sense"). But I think the cause of these gaffes makes all the difference as to whether Obama can compete. And we cannot yet know the cause.

An ignorant gaffe is made because one does not have experience in doing what one is doing. An accomplished piano player who errs when playing a piece of Bach for the first time is committing gaffes borne of ignorance; with practice, he will overcome them. An obtuse gaffe, on the other hand, implies a congenital tendency: one cannot keep from committing the error. For most presidential candidates, gaffes are obtuse gaffes. If they can make a competitive challenge for the White House, they probably have had a lot of practice at electioneering. So, any gaffes they continue to make are, in a sense, congenital. Bush's tendency to toss out non-sequiturs and Kerry's tendency to add impromptu addenda to pre-prepared remarks are obtuse gaffes. Neither can help themselves.

But Obama is really not in the same category. This is his first stab at competitive politics that is not on the retail level (which, by all accounts, he is excellent at). So, Obama might be making gaffes due to ignorance, or lack of training in the high profile, media-centered affair that is the presidential campaign. This is a training he might be able to acquire. But not necessarily. Maybe Obama possesses an inalterable tendency to overreach with his rhetoric. Maybe he cannot keep from putting his foot in his mouth. We have just not seen enough of Barack Obama to know either way.

We should know fairly soon. If this is due to ignorance, the wrinkle will be ironed out as Obama gains experience. In this case, Obama becomes the candidate who benefits more than anybody from this long campaign season. This early campaign is largely inconsequential insofar as voters are not really paying much attention. Candidates can use this time to perfect their shticks for the big performances, which will begin after Labor Day, without too many negative consequences. The length of the rehearsal helps Obama more than anybody because he has never performed this routine before, and he needs more practice than anybody.

The long-term consequences of gaffes today might actually be positive for Obama. Consider: if the 10,000-dead-in-Kansas comment is the last major gaffe that Obama commits, some journalist/pundit somewhere will take notice eventually, and write a story about Obama improving on the stump, gaining confidence, and developing a little momentum. Indeed, this cycle is perverse enough that it is probably in one's interests to do poorly-but-not-too-poorly today so that tomorrow you can induce the press to write about how you are gaining momentum.