From the latest USA Today/Gallup poll:

In a poll taken Thursday through Sunday, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say by 2-1 that Obama has the better chance of beating the Republican in November. Republicans agree: By more than 3-1, they say likely GOP nominee John McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama.

That's true even though Americans are split, 46%-46%, over whether Obama, a first-term senator, has the experience to be president. In contrast, Clinton is seen as having enough experience by 2-1, McCain by 3-1.

People like Obama's chances, but the poll has them in a dead heat among likely voters. That half the country thinks he doesn't "have the experience to be a good president" is surely one reason. And this came on the same day as the Washington Times reports worries within the military "about Mr. Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications." Lefties were outraged by this "fresh and newly-minted Obama smear," but the military has every reason to worry.

Last week Foreign Policy released a survey of "more than 3,400 active and retired officers at the highest levels of command." The officers were asked about the impact of the surge "on the ultimate achievement of the US military's goals in Iraq." Surely these officers understand securing peace and stability as among the military's ultimate goals, and 88 percent said the strategy had had a positive effect (44 percent very positive, 44 percent somewhat positive).

Obama disagrees, but on what basis? The Iraq war has come to define the military. That he should be so out of step with the institution's leadership on so central an issue is reason enough to doubt his judgment, informed as it is by so little experience and so few qualifications. And those doubts are clearly shared by the public at large.