On Fox News Sunday, John McCain ventured into territory that I'm sure had his campaign staff cringing:

WALLACE: But I want to go to the bigger issue...

MCCAIN: Yes, sure.

WALLACE: ... which is that you said Obama doesn't understand national security, has no experience, no background on these issues.

I understand the voters are going to make up their minds. In John McCain's opinion, does someone who has no background in national security - - is he fit to be commander in chief?

MCCAIN: Again, I'm not ducking your question, Chris. You could make an argument maybe that Jack Kennedy was not, quote, "qualified" in 1960 as opposed to Richard Nixon. The voters decided on Jack Kennedy.

It's probably not the smartest thing for McCain to be implicitly putting himself in the role of Dick Nixon while casting Obama as JFK. Better drop any future comparisons to 1960.

Meanwhile, the Roger Simon writes that the Obama campaign wants to make the following argument:

"You can tell a lot about a candidate by the campaign they run," Axelrod said.

And this is the pitch the Obama campaign is going to make in the weeks ahead, especially to those superdelegates who are still on the fence: Obama has run a good primary campaign, which is a sign that he will run a good general election campaign, and then a good presidency. Clinton, the Obama campaign will say, cannot make the same argument.

"Hillary is a bad manager," a senior Obama aide told me. "Does it really look like she could deal with the Republicans?"

Can't Clinton turn this into an effective counter punch against Obama by arguing that George W. Bush ran two of the smoothest, most efficient presidential campaigns in history but still, in the view of many Democrats, ran one of the worst administrations ever? Conversely, Bill Clinton's '92 operation was a bit of train wreck in motion, no? Yet Democrats believe he turned out to be a pretty competent president.