In my last post, I discussed the need to get internal methods in sync with external competition. However, this comes from leadership. In classically strategy, the job of a leader is to make the tough decisions about winning by judging the nature of the ground and the changes in the climate. Someone who makes popular or easy decisions while ignoring the ground and climate is a no leader at all. For example, the Democratic super delegates consist theoretically of party "leaders," meaning that they are charged with these decisions, but Obama wants to absolve them of that role by saying that they should merely confirm whoever is ahead at the end of the primaries. If their job is to pick the best candidate, they have to examine not just the votes but what the votes mean in terms of competitive position. They must look at the ground and climate. In terms of the ground, Hillary has proven to be stronger than Obama in the large battleground states that have decided the last four elections and will decide the next one. But even more important is climate because situations are dynamic. Pennsylvania's vote indicates that Obamaâ€™s appeal is fading due to his statements about guns, religion, Rev. Wright, Ayers, and so on. Indiana is pivotal in confirming that the political climate has indeed changed. If the super delegates have an ounce of leadership skill, they will realize that any Obamaâ€™s losses after these revelations say much, much more about what will happen in November than his wins before them.