Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE OBAMA BACKLASH.
We appear to be entering a new phase of the campaign season. Let's call it the Age of Disillusionment (with Barack Obama). The New York Times capped a week of head-scratching over Obama's positions on FISA, gay marriage, the death penalty, and troop withdrawal by publishing a scathing editorial called "New and Not Improved." Yesterday Frank Rich, who was an Obama enthusiast throughout the Democratic primaries, compared the nominee unfavorably to Wall-E, a cartoon robot. Today E.J. Dionne writes that Obama is showing signs of "unsteadiness" in responding to the McCain campaign's goading on Iraq.
And let's not forget the continuing faux outrage from editorial boards over Obama's decision to privately fund his campaign; Republicans have more 527 funding groups, so Obama's choice ensured he can compete with McCain on even financial ground. The Hartford Courant, though, declared the decision "Mr. Obama's Flip-Flop" and called him a "hypocrite," all without mentioning conservative 527s.
Are we experiencing a genuine shift in Obama's issue positions and campaign strategy, or just a self-perpetuating media narrative? Obama's position on FISA does appear to represent a real capitulation. But his statement that he'd assess conditions on the ground before implementing his promised Iraq troop draw down is just common sense. Meanwhile, social liberals who profess to be surprised by Obama's stances on the death penalty, guns, and gay marriage have not been following either his writings on these topics or the campaign itself.
Political analysts and reporters are entering a phase of boredom and frustration with this campaign. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were the two most interesting people in the 2008 presidential contest; for many of us writing about the race a lot of the fun ended when Clinton dropped out. And because of how long the Dem primary went on, people seem particularly disappointed and annoyed by the shift in tone to the general election, in which candidates, naturally, appeal to the center.
Nevertheless, it's true that Obama hasn't been making strong progressive statements on domestic social issues. He hasn't been discussing the importance of the Supreme Court in a context larger than its recent decision, for example. (Hello, Roe?) Whether this trend will continue will be tested tomorrow, when Obama will speak here in Washington, D.C. to the League of United Latin American Citizens. Another contentious topic, immigration, will surely be on the agenda.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (8)
I can only speak for myself, but I am annoyed by the Obama campaign's weakness in the messaging front. For example, when he made the announcement that he’s opting out of the public finance system, he should have brought up the fact that McCain is gaming the system, but he didn't. Another instance is the Clark "controversy". His statement on Tuesday should have been stated on Monday. Instead we get the campaign rejecting Clark's statement. It was contradictory and sloppy. He's either been too slow to respond or on the defensive when responding. His opponent does a better job in handling the media.
Posted by: Micheline | July 7, 2008 10:24 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I am annoyed by the Obama campaign's weakness in the messaging front. For example, when he made the announcement that he’s opting out of the public finance system, he should have brought up the fact that McCain is gaming the system, but he didn't. Another instance is the Clark "controversy". His statement on Tuesday should have been stated on Monday. Instead we get the campaign rejecting Clark's statement. It was contradictory and sloppy. He's either been too slow to respond or on the defensive when responding. His opponent does a better job in handling the media.
Posted by: Micheline | July 7, 2008 10:24 AM
I love it. Obama says he's the "change" candidate. The Liberals applaud, scream, holler, wet their pants in excitement! Then Obama "changes" on some issues and the Liberals boo, scream, holler, wet their pants with rage, calling him a flip-flopper! It's almost as if the Liberals are idiots not knowing that "change" means you "change."
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Posted by: John Lofton, Recovering Republican | July 7, 2008 11:48 AM
It's almost as if the Liberals are idiots not knowing that "change" means you "change."
Well, someone around here is an idiot. Just don't look in a mirror.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | July 7, 2008 2:56 PM
The FISA cave-in is the one which really bothers me, although I think the waffling on ending the war will hurt him much more in the long run. If he's going to muck about in that pig sty for an interminable amount of time, why vote for him? If I want to vote for a Republican, Senator Obama, I'll vote for McCain.
Posted by: Marti Perez | July 7, 2008 3:15 PM
Well, I must admit that he gave us all full disclosure. He is the candidate of change....and change he has done!
Posted by: El Viajero | July 7, 2008 3:58 PM
I've been bored since Edwards dropped out, having gotten my full of identity politicking and the oppression olympics a long time ago. Of course, if he keeps on going, I guess Obama will be giving you ladies something to complain about, now, too.
I don't expect anyone to come riding to your rescue, now, either. It looks to me like it's a little late for that.
Coalitional politics sure is a bitch.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2008 4:20 PM
Do pledged Obama delegates have the obligation to switch votes at the convention if they feel that he no longer represents the sentiments of those that elected him?
The DNC rules not only allow it, they encourage it:
http://www.pledgednotbound.com/
Posted by: Tony Kondaks | July 8, 2008 3:15 AM