This Washington Post dispatch on the Obama campaign befuddles me:

Sen. Barack Obama has seemed to float above the fray over the last few days -- barely acknowledging attacks from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on the campaign trail and leaving it to his campaign aides to object to (and raise money off of) what they describe as a wave of negativity from the national front-runner...

...Today, Obama is staying on his mellow message with a speech about "national service." He is continuing to urge out-of-state college students to cast their ballots on campus in Iowa -- an entirely legal process, but one that his rivals have complained about -- and calling for more volunteerism. He has left the dueling with Clinton -- in particular, over Iran -- to former Sen. John Edwards, who drew sharp distinctions with the New York senator during their NPR debate here on Tuesday.

Now, I have long said that if someone was going to overtake Sen. Hillary Clinton, they were going to have to "make something happen" to draw substantive contrast with her, and there wasn't much to work with but Iraq.

In Iowa, that has not proven true.

Sen. Barack Obama has a slight lead in some polls (overall, polls show a three-way dead heat), that occurred after Clinton's equivocating in a debate allowed fears of her electability -- seemingly put to bed -- to resurface.

This seems to show some fragility in her support among primary voters, though that fragility may well be unique to Iowa Democrats.

Either way, the race still seems to be turning on Clinton: is she electable or not?

Perhaps Clinton will end up on the losing end of that question (David Corn and Sam Boyd suggest that her campaign's attacks may not be supporting her own argument about her ability to fight well.)

But for Obama to try to "float above fray" leaves Clinton -- very much on the offense -- more in control of their destiny.

This week offered Obama a fresh opportunity to focus the race on a favorable issue: Iran.

With the new National Intelligence Estimate undermining neocon dreams of expanded war, Clinton's vote in favor of the belligerent Kyl-Lieberman resolution could be portrayed as enabling an utterly misguided confrontation, and evidence of putting politics ahead of leadership on foreign policy -- supposedly Clinton's strength.

But according to the W. Post, Obama is standing back and letting Edwards take the lead on that front.

With Obama the nominal front-runner, he would have to make it a consistent issue if it he was to successfully frame the race around who has the best foreign policy vision and judgment. (Or if Edwards was skillful enough, he could pass Obama by.)

It could be that Obama is hesitant to press the issue of the Kyl-Lieberman vote since he was campaigning instead of voting on the Senate floor at the time.

But as he made his view clear on the day of the vote, it shouldn't be hard to say he made the right foreign policy call and Clinton didn't, again. (And surely, all the sitting senators have missed votes -- it's impossible not to.)

I never thought anyone else besides Clinton could win a primary election that's about nothing. Based on recent developments, I may be wrong.

But if I were Obama, I wouldn't float. I wouldn't let Clinton set the terms of the debate. I'd make the election about something.