AP

ONLY two months ago, Hillary Clinton looked unbeatable. Her lead in the race to capture the Democratic nomination widened by the day. Some polls put her as much as 30 points clear of Barack Obama, and she led in every one of the early-primary states. All was sweet in Hillaryland.

No longer. Mr Obama is now ahead, by a slender margin, in Iowa, which in less than three weeks will be the first state to vote. This week he seemed to have eliminated the gap in New Hampshire, which will vote five days later (and where independents crucially can vote in the Democratic primary). Some polls now even show him ahead in South Carolina, the third important Democratic race, where until very recently Mrs Clinton was leading by more than 20 points. But Mrs Clinton still has a formidable machine behind her. For Mr Obama to sneak past her, he needs everything to go right (whilst she just needs him to trip up once); but there is now a real contest.

In principle, this is a good thing. Democrats deserve a choice. Even if Mrs Clinton prevails, it is better that she has been tested. But what about Mr Obama himself?

His rise is partly due to that familiar part of any presidential race: the front-runner's wobble. First, Mrs Clinton prevaricated during a debate; then she panicked—attacking Mr Obama personally, which has gone down very badly, and tacking abruptly to the left with a startling disavowal of the free-trade policies so effectively promoted by her husband. Meanwhile, though, Mr Obama has been picking up speed.

The bad news for Mr Obama is that he will now fall under the same degree of scrutiny that Mrs Clinton has endured for ages. But there also seems to have been a change in mood. Two months ago, this newspaper hazarded that the quality Americans most wanted was competence, and this remains the point on which the formidably intelligent and hard-working Mrs Clinton remains ahead. (If she has much less experience than she claims, she still has more than Mr Obama.) But the campaign is starting to focus on softer issues. Weary of “Bush-Clinton” partisan politics, Americans may prefer someone who can bring their country, and the world, together.

The audacity of hope—and its limitations

This plays to Mr Obama's strength: he has always been the candidate of “hope”. As America's first black president, he would show a new face to the world. As someone who was educated in Indonesia and has an understanding of Islam that no other candidate shares, he could do much to bridge the deadly gulf between Christian and Muslim states. He admits, bluntly, that “the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles”—though he still reserves the right to use unilateral force. At home, he would put an end to America's depressing and vicious version of medieval England's dynastic Wars of the Roses. He appeals to Republican voters far more than any other Democrat, especially the detested Mrs Clinton.

This is not just spin. A President Obama would turn preconceptions upside down: indeed he might be able to achieve far more both at home and abroad than any other candidate. But hope does not balance budgets, craft alliances or reform schools. It certainly does not prove that Mr Obama would be the best, or even a good, president.

Mr Obama cannot change his experience deficit; but he can change his substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other Democrats, it must be said) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about free trade. He wants health insurance for all—and expects the rich to pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent charter schools. On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the “surge” in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and clings to the idea, beloved of his party base, that all troops should be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office.

There is something rather timid and unhopeful about all this. Mr Obama is not prepared to break ranks with his party in the same way that John McCain divides Republicans over immigration or Rudy Giuliani does over abortion. Where he has produced novel policies, they have sometimes been bizarre, such as his plan to fine mortgage-lenders who allow borrowers to get into debt, and to give the money to the “victims”.

Offering America a chance to heal its divisions is a powerful selling point. But like Mrs Clinton's competence, it is not enough. Mr Obama still needs to do more to show how he defines change, as opposed just to personifying it. If he can somehow do that, though, he will be a hard man to beat.