A new poll from Public Agenda suggests yes, at least when it comes to his argument that we should engage Iran diplomatically. That the number of people who prefer diplomacy has jumped 10 points (and military options have dropped slightly) just since last fall makes me think the shift is due to Obama's direct influence, rather than a natural change in public opinion.

What's striking is if you combine the two military options, threatening and taking action, you still only have 12% support. If John McCain is going to go after Obama for his willingness to engage enemy nations, he's going to come across as an advocate for military intervention, and the public clearly isn't in his corner. His alternative is to make a more nuanced attack on Obama's willingness to negotiate without preconditions, but that's a tougher argument to make in a political climate that doesn't handle nuance very well. The discussion will naturally shift back to Bush-style militiarism versus Obamian diplomacy. Advantage: Obama.

Can you imagine John Kerry or even Hillary Clinton defending an arguably liberal position related to national security like this, and actually winning the argument? For years Democrats have let Republicans paint them into a corner on national security issues out of a fear of appearing weak, and they've lost.

That's why I think Obama should completely ignore hawkishness when selecting a running mate. Many will argue that he needs someone with national security credentials to counter McCain's military service. But that's playing the game on Republican terms. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq, and the majority prefer diplomacy to deal with Iran. The hawks in the Republican party don't control the debate anymore.