A commentary piece on Slate.com makes the argument that Barack Obama is running a lackluster campaign because he never intended to be the next president. (”Is Obama another Dukakis?”)

Writer Christopher Hutchins asks: “Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?”

Later, Hutchins suggests, “…what I suspect in his case is that he had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn’t the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.”

Another commentary on Slate.com, posted last week by chief political correspondent John Dickerson,  has another view of Obama’s  measured approach to campaigning.  The title:  “What, Me Worry? Why Obama acts like he’s 10 points up in the polls.”

Dickerson says this of Obama’s campaign advisers: “… maybe they’re not rattled because they’ve been through this before. If they’d listened to the polls and Democratic experts, they’d never have gotten in the race. In the summer of 2007, there were lots of Obama supporters who thought he should panic a little more — or risk losing to Hillary Clinton. The Obama campaign stuck to its plan and won. Aides often cite this lesson in explaining why they’re not going to overreact now.”

Democrats certainly have seen poorly run campaigns in recent years. (See Democratic handler Terry McAuliffe’s take on John Kerry’s final days last election cycle. In his book –  “What a Party!” — McAuliffe called Kerry’s 2004 campaign “one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics.”)

Any thoughts on who’s closer to the mark about Obama’s campaign — Hutchins or Dickerson?