Could Obama's "right moves" cost him the election?

[judy]

It seems to be an accepted idea that in order to get elected, you "move right" in order to get more votes.
My question is:
When has that strategy ever worked?
Didn't work for Gore, didn't work for Kerry, they did win the election, but so close that BushCo could steal it with not too much effort.
In my view, standing up for the Constitution and real American values is not being a progressive or heaven forbid, leftist. Doing so, as in the case of FISA, and showing a clear determination and personal commitment to those views would generate an Obama landslide.
His current strategy of saying the same things as everyone else, and playing the same old game, is I think putting him in a very close race with McCain.
Not to mention my own personal disappointment.
When Hillary's statement on FISA is better than any Obama statement on the same, it makes me tremble in my boots for the November election.

I will add that I will vote for Obama and donate to his campaign as I have already done.
But I don't know why people think that accepting right wing policies is a good way to get elected. I don't believe that.

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. has catering to the percieved center worked before? very definitely /nt

[TwilightGardener]

9. Yep--Bill Clinton.

[Breeze54]

17. That was a different time and place... not like today at all. n/t

[polichick]

2. Yes, if people start to perceive him as just another bullshit artist.

[marimour]

3. why do people start threads about something being discussed in 10 other ones right now?

[Overseas]

7. Their concerns are just too darn special to be tucked into the TEN EXISTING THREADS

THey're just super-concerned, you see. And it takes over five seconds to find another thread about whether Obama's recent decisions will cost him votes.

[paulk]

4. it's pretty well accepted that moving toward the center is how

you win a general election. It's debatable, however, if Obama is moving toward the "center". Some of his latest moves are clearly moves from the center and to the right.

Worst of all, in my view, is that his recent bout of political expediency will be seen by many as "politics as usual", a dangerous move for a candidate who has sold himself as some "new" brand of politician. His campaign of words based on "hope" and "change" faces the very real danger of being percieved as nothing more than cheap sloganeering - and at some point, if you want to be the leader of this country, actions have to speak louder than words.

[polichick]

11. It IS politics as usual - he's dangerously close to being viewed as a typical bullshit artist...

Even by me.

[paulk]

12. the real battle in the general election

is over "defining yourself". Whether you get to do it or the other side gets to do it. I don't think issues are as important in the GE as they are in the primaries.

The real question is - would voting "no" on FISA hurt Obama more on National Security than the perception that he's just another - to quote you - "bullshit artist" hurt him?

I'm afraid it could be the latter, judging from the last few elections. Both Kerry and Gore let the Republicans define them (with plenty of help from a media almost wholly in the Republican's pocket).

I fear Obama is walking into the same trap.

[polichick]

13. Yes, and both Kerry and Gore regretted it later...

It does look like Obama might be walking into the same trap ~ though he can still save himself.

Sure hope he gets back on track. We need young voters this time like never before ~ and they can spot a bullshit artist from miles away!

[TexasObserver]

5. there was this fellow named Clinton, and this other fellow named Carter

Yeah, it works.

[blondeatlast]

6. No, it will help him win it. It always does.

Purity is fine in smallish doses, but politics needs horsepills.

[judy]

15. Examples please...

Help! I would love to believe you are right...
All I see, is people like Barbara Lee, doomed to lose by the MSM after being the 1 vote against attacking Afghanistan (another fake war, BTW).
Result: re-elected by an unprecedented 85%.

And it is not purity. It is honesty and conviction, and willingness to defend basic moral and constitutional principles.
Maybe I should be more cynical...

[blondeatlast]

18. Values are great and I applaud yours, but politcs is what it is, and one of those

things it is is a sales job. You've got to get people into the store before they are willing to buy.

You don't have to like it but that's how it is. Everyone even slightly leftist wants us out of Iraq, improvement in the economy, etc--but we gotta get in power first.

I rather love purity, but in a corrupt system, it needs pragmatics to make it possible.

Obama has to be pragmatic or McSame wins. I have an 11 year old son--I can't take that chance--and I sure as hell won't. That's why I get a little angry at those who insist on "conviction." My son may go to Iraq for the "conviction" some held in 2008 if McSame gets elected. I HAVE to protect him--it's mMY own calling and conviction.

[judy]

19. "Obama has to be pragmatic or McSame wins"

I hope that you are right, b.a.l!
I kind of think the opposite, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Your son might go to Iraq because the Republican "conviction" is not opposed by a different "conviction", but by a mild version of something that varies from one day to the next.

Again, I hope I am wrong, and more importantly, may your son stay safe and at home!

[question everything]

8. These elections are unique in that national security is on front pages

(and if not, the McCain campaign will make sure it does).

Since 1972 the Democratic party has "earned" the image of "soft on national security."

Our nominee cannot afford to provide our opponents with more ammunition. It is bad enough that Obama is being viewed by too many as "not one of us." He has to show his strength on national security. This is not a simple "move to the right;" it is winning the ones for whom national security is the most important issue, the ones who proudly display their families' service to our country.

Once in office he can modify many of these directives. But he cannot make the changes that all of us wish unless he is there.

Funny, many here complain that the Republicans are using some of Clinton's comments against him. Why bother? They have here a full trove of ammunition, from Obama's own loyal supporters.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. I was about to make exactly the same observations when I saw this.

In a time when the entire country seems to be rejecting the Republican brand (labeled even by their own as "spoiled dog food") and moving left, why would ANYONE decide to move right or become more centrist?

The answer is that there is one segment of the country that isn't moving left - the corporations who absolutely represent the status quo and the military industrial machine. Somehow, Barack's gotten the message.

They've all gotten the message. Except the few who have been allowed to keep playing at being the "good guys" this time around, just to keep the Kabuki interesting.

You know what? I have finally realized that there is no cavalry and no one is coming to rescue us. This is the way that is.

In a very short time, I like many, many others, experienced an actual belief in and hope of actual change only to be plunged into despair and apathy in pretty short order. I kind of feel like someone who thought they married the perfect guy and then he hauls off and slugs you on the honeymoon. Despair - oh, no! he's not who I thought he was! The guy who had the courage to stand against the Iraq War when it was a very, very, unpopular stance. The guy with the courage of his convictions. The new kind of leader who wouldn't pander and who considered me smart enough to follow complex sentence structure.

Then apathy as a survival mechanism - you can only go around in a state of outrage for so long before you just don't have the energy anymore.

I know I have to vote for him, but the Fisa vote robbed me of the vitality and the regeneration I felt when he won the nomination. And, the honeymoon is too short for me to run home to Mama's. I have to save face and put up a brave front. I'll just put make-up on the bruise and pretend that everything's fine.

[judy]

14. Phoebe, what a great post!

I feel the same way...
I think we are just engaged to the guy, not yet married, however.

My hope is that once we are married, the guy (who touts personal responsibility) realizes that a huge responsibility to the well being of the world at large is suddenly resting upon his shoulders, and that he needs to draw upon his inspired side to fight the petty, the greedy and the shameless, who will try anything to stop anyone slightly connected to truth.

But I won't hold my breath.

And to those who complain on "why don't you post on an existing thread" I say, the question here is not about Obama per se, but about the wisdom of making yourself plain in order to win.

I happen to think the tactic doesn't work.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton presented himself clearly differently from Bush 1 when he campaigned. He talked about Universal Healthcare, etc. clearly oriented toward ordinary folks, compassion, peace, etc. It is after he was in the WH that he started veering to the "same old same old".
Sometimes I even think that advisors of the Dick Morris persuasion are infiltrating the Obama campaign and giving him the wrong advice on purpose.
But I have been paranoid ever since January 20th, 2001, so who knows...
Other times, I even think there won't be any election at all, so you see...

That said, anyone is better than Bush or McCain. I will vote for Obama, I donate to Obama, and I always appreciate the responses I get from posting on DU. There is always a lot of comfort to be had.
Thank you!

[ToeBot]

16. I'll rec that post. nt

[DevonRex]

20. Oh for Fuck's Sake. Not another one.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I do believe some here are counting on it.

Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for some, but many if not most of those with protracted knickers-in-a-twist weren't really on board to begin with and are using this to try to undermine the campaign.

[JoFerret]

22. If so then bugger everyone

Gotta elect Obama.
He's the one we have.
I keep my reservations and regrets on that mostly quiet.

[rug]

23. If McCain was not a slobbering idiot, yes.

As it is, obama will win by a large margin. Which makes all these maneuvers ludicrous. It's a shame, he's blowing a unique opportunity to win from the left.

[grillo7]

24. Obama is doing what he needs to do

Going more to the center is what every winning presidential candidate in contemporary history has done, because the majority of Americans are not hardcore partisans one way or the other. This is not restricted to Democrats. Look at Bush in 2000. He claimed to hate the idea of being "the world's policeman", and talked positively about reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the campaign trail, but then acted quite differently in office. Let's be realistic here and acknowledge what Obama will have to do to win this office for us, because regardless of what some think, this race will be very close, with the ultimate outcome likely hedging yet again on the votes of one swing state. It's well and good to criticize, but let's be pragmatic as well and work hard to get the right candidate in office.

[MarjorieG]

25. We need to push shifting on rhetoric and emphasis, only. Even on guns.

One could argue on FISA, if wanted, that the newer, TEMPORARY version, gives us a court that was going to expire. Won't even go into the October surprise to be blamed on absence of FISA. Obama will fix any abuse of power of this and other Bush legislation.