It is legit to ask whether the 50-country strategy makes as much sense, however. Spending more time in swing states this summer might have made more sense.

However, most of the skepticism I’ve heard and observed continues to flow from the same skeptics who existed before his travel plans were announced. So I don’t see evidence that Obama’s small-world tour has caused any loss of support at all. At worst, it might have cost him some time when he could have been adding supporters in tight contests.

However, ‘attacking an enemy at his strength’ is strategy I’ve encouraged since my first read of a certain old classic and polling has shown repeatedly that McCain’s more trusted on foreign policy (as are Republicans over Democrats). So his tour has produced indelible images of his warm reception in places that matter to millions of undecided Americans: war places and white places, the latter where most Americans track their ancestry to: Germany, England, etc. In that regard, he could only have chosen a better itinerary had he added stops in Scots-Irish lands.

No, it doesn’t translate immediately into fresh support. But it does diminish the fears that he might be weak in global matters. Eliminating a potential late campaign Achilles heel provides him room to run head-on to the economic issues that will dominate the post-convention narrative.

For further evidence that his tour has been a positive, one only needs to observe how McCain has responded. To gain media attention, he’s had to guilt-trip the press, put out constant teases that he might name his VP and narrow his ‘weak on foreign policy’ charge to ‘weak on Iraq’. Practically hourly.

‘Weak on Iraq’ has to be pounded by McCain because it’s the only perceived strength he has in the public mind. Slipping there, by even 1 or 2 percentage points, can easily cost him the entire game.

On the other hand, his slippage in some swing states does indicate that Obama can’t rest on his laurels or exude so much confidence that the meme of arrogance is permitted to grow. AS Nate notes, the shift in support trends track back to the rising meme that he’s a flip-flopper. Which means his turnabout on telecom immunity, in particular, may have cost him some base support.

I find that encouraging, if that proves correct, as I continue to believe it’s a fundamental necessity that citizens across the country should define limits for candidates and officeholders so they gain a clear idea where they should not stray. That’s how a democratic nation maintains its best health. And I believe the citing of his reversal on telecom immunity should be repeated, that his support should wane some, to drive home the seriousness of his mistake of refusing to defend the Constitution.

That’s the only way he’ll learn never to cross that line again.

If Obama prefers to eke out a win, instead of working towards a landslide, that’s his decision to make. Doing so increases the odds that he can lose the contest to a vastly inferior candidate, but that’s what should happen when one chooses a vastly inferior position like damaging the Constitution and taking his progressive base for granted.

I continue to believe he’s the superior candidate. But that, alone, is such a low bar to hurdle. And it doesn’t make sense to tie one’s own shoelaces together and risk defeat as he clearly did with telecom immunity that allowed American corporations to illegally spy on ordinary Americans.

“I’m less inferior” remains a rather weak motivational, as it should.