A humorous bit from Lois Romano's must read profile of McCain campaign guru Steve Schmidt in today's Washington Post:

Nonetheless, Schmidt says he won't allow the campaign to get thrown off by momentary distractions and pundits shooting from the hip. To that end, he and his colleagues have developed what they jokingly call the "Dave Gergen theory of the campaign" -- a metaphor for all talking heads.

Gergen, a veteran of four presidential administrations, is a frequent pundit on cable news. If senior members of the campaign disagree on a strategic move, they watch what Gergen has to say. They then do the opposite.

Now, you may notice that we have a piece from David Gergen leading RCP today, one that I think happens to be a pretty spot on piece of analysis. Here's the nut of Gergen's argument:

Say what you will about Republicans making a muddle of governing, but they sure know how to campaign. The turn of events that John McCain and his team have engineered in recent weeks is one of the most significant events of the campaign and now poses a serious threat of an upset this fall. [snip]

Still, this should be a huge wake-up call to Obama and the Democrats. From my perspective, Obama needs to introduce a game changer - and fast - before public opinion starts to gel around the notion that he is a phenom who deserves great respect but is not seasoned enough and would be too much of a risk in the Oval Office.

Gergen serves up three "game changer" ideas, two of which (picking Hillary or Gore for Veep) he admits aren't very likely to happen. The third idea is for Obama to announce some members of his cabinet - or at least a number of high profile figures who would serve as advisors - to assuage concerns about his experience and bolster his image as bipartisan leader interested in governing effectively.

Of the three ideas, one (Gore coming on) is a virtual impossibility and the other (naming cabinet members early) may not produced the desired effect of "changing the game." But picking Hillary clearly would change the trajectory of the race in a positive way for Obama - much more so than any other vice presidential candidate under consideration.

While I agree with the prevailing wisdom that Obama probably won't pick Hillary for any number of reasons, after two and a half months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent and his poll numbers sliding on the eve of the convention, for all her flaws Hillary looks like the smartest pick for him to make.

So the question is: does the Obama campaign operate under a "Gergen theory" too? Will they do the opposite of what he suggests in terms of making Hillary a "game changer"? Steve Schmidt and his folks had better hope they do, because this time Gergen is on the money.