Pegged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama seems to be relishing his new role as the soon-to-be-crowned presidential nominee. He closes the gap with Clinton on support from the powerful superdelegates. He has taken a confident, cautious tone in his recent debate with Hillary Clinton. And his campaign ignores salvoes from John McCain, right-wing bloggers, and even the Republican National Committee.

But there's plenty that could still go wrong to derail his nomination, not to mention his general election campaign. If he loses upcoming primaries in Texas and Ohio or there is a sudden shift of a couple of hundred undecided superdelegates, Clinton could regain the frontrunner status once again. And if prominent party leaders such as Al Gore come down on the side of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations (can anyone honestly imagine Gore taking up the cause of disenfranchising Florida voters??!!), then Clinton could add 366 delegates to her column. All bets that Oprah Winfrey will be dancing with glee at the inaugural ball would be off. 

What could shift Obama's fortunes so suddenly?

First, the revelation of a major scandal or skeletons. Salacious rumors that have lurked menacingly on the Internet but have remained beneath the bubble of the media's radar screen could yet wage a devastating sneak attack, if the mainstream media becomes persuaded that there may be something to them.

Second, the candidate could commit a humiliating unforced gaffe that could undermine his image as a potential commander-in-chief. While it's hard to imagine what that gaffe might be, one should be frightened by the fallout from Michelle Obama's recent patriotism gaffe. As bad as that one has been, imagine the fallout if Barack himself had said he'd never been proud of his country until he started beating Clinton.

Third, a major national security threat timed to coincide with the upcoming primaries could refocus the electorate's attention on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. If combined with a gaffe on Obama's part or an especially commanding response from Clinton, voters could begin to see Clinton as a stronger force to reckon with war hero McCain.

Fourth, Hillary Clinton's campaign cannot be counted out. She has managed to score impressive and unexpected victories before, and it's always possible she could turn the tide once again.

While I don't consider any of these possibilities likely, it is worth stressing that Obama's nomination is not guaranteed. Democrats hopeful for an Obama nomination ought to stop their premature victory dances, and focus instead on the challenge of winning the remaining contests and gathering support from as many superdelegates as possible. This is time for buckling down for a fight, not reveling in a victory.

cross-posted at http://www.joe-perez.com/

Laurie Garrett, author of Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health and senior fellow for global health, Council on Foreign Relations, discussed president George W. Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa in "Bush to Tout AIDS Program" on the radio today.

She said, "Only Nixon could have gone to China, well maybe only Bush could have pulled this off [fought AIDS in Africa] with the right coalition of forces behind him so that congress and the Senate would support this scale of level of spending."

Sometimes journalists say the stupidest things. The thinking goes: it must have required a Republican to massively increase the US government's AIDS spending to $15 billion over 5 years, because everyone knows Republicans are stingy with money and they don't like people with AIDS either (not to mention people from the Third World). If a Democrat had proposed the same program, Republicans would surely have defeated it because everyone knows what bleeding hearts they are.

If Garrett is correct, then it stands to reason that Barack Obama would have to be the worst possible president for bolstering the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS in Africa. Not only is he a bleeding heart liberal, but he's got a Kenyan grandmother and is beholden to the AIDS lobby (one of those liberal special interest groups). There's no way he can trump Bush's groundbreaking record!

Or so the common prejudices, offered as keen wisdom by Garrett, goes. But this would overlook a few inconvenient details. First, Obama the candidate has committed to continuing the progress made by president Bush. His website promises:

There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.

Secondly, in the Senator's 2006 World AIDS Day speech, he commits himself to change in both spending and work in the cultural sphere:

Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds; in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist; neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

In his speech, Obama strikes a delicate balance between recognizing the spiritual components to the AIDS epidemic and affirming the need for practical solutions. He says that HIV is increasingly contracted "because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act". That's not something you would expect a typical liberal politician to say (but then Obama's political instincts are more Integral than classically liberal).

Obama doesn't fall for the trap of simply falling for the religious right's anti-AIDS preaching. He says, "[I]f condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available... I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree."

It seems that Obama would take the best features of Bush's AIDS efforts -- the increased spending, and the recognition of a spiritual dimension to the problem -- but reform them. Science is increasingly telling us that in African cultures abstinence-only measures aren't as effective as more comprehensive approaches, and Obama would put science ahead of politics.

That's why Obama has pledged to reauthorize Bush's AIDS program, reassess its effectiveness, and add "at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years". Currently, most of Bush's AIDS funds go to African countries, But Obama says he will expand the program to meet needs of the sick in Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe.

Although Obama has given a major speech on the worldwide dimensions of the AIDS epidemic, details regarding his plans for HIV/AIDS research and treatment in the U.S. are sketchy. He supports funding for needle-exchange programs. We can hope that more details will be forthcoming.

It doesn't take a Nixon to lead the world's fight against AIDS. It takes a president with the moral fortitude to make it a top priority, the depth of vision to recognize the need to address both cultural and social dimensions to the epidemic, and the political strength to see it done. What Bush did for AIDS in Africa, Obama can do for AIDS worldwide.

Note: cross-posted on Until