TheMillerCircle.org

Throughout the primaries, but particularly since Iowa, Barack Obama seemed like a dream candidate, whose refreshing candor and thoughtful message attracted huge crowds and unparalleled enthusiasm evident in all sectors of the country. Everywhere he went, his calm, but firm projection for a better America, evoked memories of a country much closer to the one that resides in one of our distant memory banks. He resonated so effectively with Americans that, astonishingly, his campaign donations transitioned into a miraculous internet engine, with small donors generating a record-setting war chest that made it seem like silent America was finally beginning to speak. Obama’s call to action seemed to reflect his own history of public engagement to show, by example, how things could change. Yes, there were problems and some hesitation about him in terms of policy details. He was timid about his health care plan, perhaps the most vital domestic issue we will face (unit the recent news on the economy–so now, once again, it’s the economy, stupid). He was not a liberal’s dream candidate, such as one might find in Russ Feingold for example, but at least, liberals could cheer about him. He seemed to be on the right path. On almost every issue he articulated, such as getting out of Iraq, changing the direction of the country, improving health care, all resonated deeply with polling data which showed that the country was now, for the first time since the FDR era, aligned with the left, not the right, with 60-80% of Americans consistently in agreement with liberal ideas for America: they finally shouted that government was not the problem. Indeed, the public was now crying for government to become more active in solving America’s critical problems. Yet, in recent weeks, it seems like the only thing progressive about Obama has been his progressive move to the center. Now I wonder if he is electable, if he hasn’t turned his back on the very internet donors that were so keen on him after Iowa. We will know very shortly whether this move has reduced national enthusiasm for his candidacy: it will show up on the internet donation meter.
Obama’s recent announcement that he would forgo public financing for his campaign in the Fall was a disappointment for many of his followers, but I saw that transition as one of common sense, because the public money available would not be sufficient for a relatively unknown candidate to ward off all the negative ads that he will face, including the Faux News smear campaigns. McCain has much better name recognition and, at least the former McCain, the one of the 2000 election, resonates well with many Americans. So, when Obama made the decision to go it alone on campaign financing, he was comforted by his astonishing internet success in raising money, that, if maintained, would provide a far greater war chest than that provided by public money. Presidential campaigns after the conventions in the fall usually spend about $ 1 million a day, yet General Motors spends $ 9 million a day on advertising its cars. I suppose this means there’s room to grow.
But will Obama’s recent transition to the center allow him to preserve the fundamental the vitality of his candidacy? In reaching for the center has he diluted his campaign? Does it mean after all that we will forever be the captives of Corporate America? Is he showing cowardice in the face of the enemy? Or is he simply astute in attempting to attract the undecided in the middle that could in fact determine the outcome of the election? Racism is still very much alive in America and has yet to rear its ugly head as a major theme, but the rumblings of it will always be there and undoubtedly Obama will face that as a significant issue in the voter appeal race. Already the 10% of Americans who think he is a Muslim sounds like a poor disguise for race-based labeling.

Yet, one can only recall that Gore and Kerry lost the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections because they tried to move to the center, to capture the poorly defined undecided. In Kerry’s case, his wishy washy style made him easy prey to the Swift Boaters who challenged his legitimacy as a war hero in a way that convinced 46% of those polled after the election that they were right. Imagine Kerry losing on the war hero issue, something that should have been an automatic plus. Despite this poor showing, if not for Ohio, John Kerry would be President today. I personally think that Obama will lose more than he will gain by the shift that he has now applied to his campaign strategy. He will now be viewed as flip-flopping, one of the fatal flaws for Kerry. In my opinion, with polling evidence to support it, Obam defeated Hilary because of her position on the war. Now that Obama has adopted a position on the war that is much closer to Hilary’s, and perhaps McCain’s, he has moved to a position of greater vulnerability. Why would any candidate whose primary victory was generated through his alignment with the views which most Americans now resonate, move away from that populist position to enter into the world of a wishy washy candidacy? I think Obama’s behavior in the last few weeks now guarantees a very close election and he has made himself a much easier target for the very kinds of charges that brought Gore and Kerry down. Maybe Obama didn’t invent the internet, but the well-funded opposition he faces will find something similar and, with their deep pockets, they will try to duplicate the Swift Boat sinking of Kerry. It was much easier for Obama to defend himself from where he was, not where is now. And, how much further will he go? In my opinion these are not good signs. A liberalist candidate disappeared.