Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers

Last Friday afternoon, the guests taking part in Sunday's roundtable discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos. One of the topics he raised was Obama's perceived move to the center, and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it. I talked about it over lunch with HuffPost's DC team, over dinner with friends, with the doorman at the hotel, and the driver on the way to the airport.

As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together":

"This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer," Axelrod told me. "He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically. Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."

Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call it Obama Zero.

In 2004, the Kerry campaign's obsession with undecided voters -- voters so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart -- allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant his medals.

Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an "unlikely candidate." Which he certainly was -- and still is. And one of the things that turned him from "unlikely" upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters -- some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn't turn out in 2004 -- to engage in the system.

So why start playing to the political fence sitters -- staking out newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA?

In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating." Obama's reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"

Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or "amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.

When Obama kneecaps his own rhetoric and dilutes his positioning as a different kind of politician, he is also giving his opponent a huge opening to reassert the McCain as Maverick brand. We know that McCain has completely abandoned any legitimate claim on his maverick image, but the echoes of that reputation are still very much with us -- especially among many in the media who would love nothing more than to be able to once again portray McCain as the real leader they fell in love with in 2000. And the new Straight Talk Express plane has been modeled on its namesake bus, decked out to better recreate the seduction.

The transition between the primaries and the general election -- and from insurgent to frontrunner -- is tricky. Even a confident campaign can be knocked off course. So this is when Obama most needs to remember what got him to this point -- and stick with it.

In a Los Angeles Times article detailing Obama's attempts at "shifting toward the center," Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way says that Obama is a "good politician. He's doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate."

But isn't being a "good politician" as it's meant here exactly what Obama defined himself as being against? Instead of Third Way think tankers, Obama should listen to this guy:

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.... The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page."

That was Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," he said that day, "but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Was that just "overheated and amplified" rhetoric?

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and "change we can believe in." I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand.

Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Kahawa]

Unfortunately, my comment was not accepted for posting yesterday. Not sure why. Sure wasn't as over-the-top as some comments that were accepted.

My point has since been made by others, but as a matter of principle, here it is: Arianna, don't expect Obama to be as liberal as you are, because he never has been. He's liberal, sure, but also closer to the center, and he's strongly devoted to the principle of finding consensus and pulling us all together. The country he wants to lead is fairly right-wing on many if not most issues. His job right now is to get everyone he can onboard to create a more open administration that will actually listen to all the people, not only the majority, not only the rich, and not only progressives who (PS I'm one of them) want what the country may not yet be ready for. Change happens incrementally, and only rarely does it occur suddenly.

[cheshirecat831]

Could A be overlooking that to get elected you have to give something to everyone?

[530Rose]

I just watched (Oh God I know I will pay for this) a little faux news, and was appalled to realize that we have played right into the hands of the right wing nut - oops I mean media - over there. They are just eating up this "split on the left." I was so angry at Clinton for giving the right some pretty ugly talking points ("I will be ready on day one, McCain will..." Now a campaign ad for McCain) but we are all doing the same thing. I mean, I guess I did know that they would be aware of this disagreement among Obama's supporters, but it sickened me to actually hear some of our words being used to support McCain and weaken Obama. Someone wrote the other day (you know who you are) "C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together try to love one another right now." I'm going to (Oh God I know I will pay for this) "Second that Emotion" and try to send the love Obama's way. Despite any flaws (and who wants an unflawed president) we believed him when he spoke to us, and we are neither suckers nor pushovers. Most of us are pretty cynical, but we saw what he was and still is made of in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. He brought us together and gave us hope. If he does nothing else, that is a huge accomplishment. C'mon people!

[genseric13]

Somebody needs to ask Barack some tough criminal law questions and I hope that happens before election day. What's his drug policy? He flipped on legalizing marijuana, much to my disappointment as a libertarian. Is he going to pardon millions of drug offenders in order to increase the Dem voting rolls? is he going to keep locking up everybody like they're doing today? Don't cover for the guy, make sure he gets locked down on some clear principles so we don't get the usual backsliding after Nov. The backsliding has already reached critical levels.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

On the one hand, it's an old truism, using a football analogy, that politics is played between the 20 yard lines, where the biggest chunk of voters are.

On the other hand, politicians who try and claim the center ground at the expense of core principles bring to mind the old Jim Hightower truism: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

Obama must be careful that he doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water, Arianna's certainly right about that. (And I've hit my quota for the month on tired clichés!)

[kylie]

I. too, agree with Arianna.

Gore and Kerry listened to the Democratic leadership, and sliced away their positions and disagreements with the way Bush and the Republicans were "leading" the country and lost their respective "elections".

They were instructred to "water down" their strong disapproval of the policies of the Bush administration and they became bland and lost the "middle" they were so ardantly appealing to.

The democrats(Obama and his strategists) had better realize that Macauffle and his "conservative group of democrats" were the same ones who gave Hillary all that "great campaign advice".

The anti-war stand, the strong disagreement with what the "right" has turned this country into, had better stay consistent and loud. (The majority of Americans are realizing what damage has been done by the Republican Party--Bush &Cheney) , and the country Wants a candidate that reflects/represents the anger, fight to change the criminal acts the current administration has `devasated our country with, and the criticism needs to continue and the issues need to be kept in front of the American people to show a Contrast between what we have endured, what Obama will present us with, when he becomes president, and how much McCain will replicate Bush's lousy policies--our country cannot afford anymore Republican blows to the economy...Or wars for oil profits.

[Nyland8]

Obama didn't win the nomination because he was the most liberal Democratic candidate. He never was and he isn't now. He was always a centrist - slightly left of Bill Clinton, who is right of center. Obama doesn't need to run to the center. He's already there and always was. He may have seemed further to the left than he is because of his long campaign against Rodham, who is even further to the right than her husband.

The democrats chose someone who was already in the middle. There were more progressive candidates in the primary - but we didn't support them.

Don't blame Obama for continuing to be who he always was.

8

[genseric13]

Earth to Nyland. Obama has the most left voting record of all 50 Senators. Now he's a centrist? What the heck are you talking about. Is your post part of the repackaging of BO???

[NotMcCain]

Read why that particular tally came to be (one vote skewed it).

Think about it. Obama more left than...Boxer? More left than....Kennedy? More left than...Feingold?

He's a moderate and--I disagree with Arianna here--moderates DO win (Carter, Clinton, Gore--who, after all, DID win).

America is overall a pretty conservative country. To get to "moderate" candidate for the majority is a good thing.

Liberals, on the other hand, DON'T win. Think...St­evenson...­..Humphrey­....Muskie­....Ted Kennedy....Gary Hart...Mon­dale....Du­kakis....K­erry....

It doesn't matter if any of these men really weren't traditional "liberals". They were portrayed as such, and lost as such.

Obama is not only a moderate Democrat, he really wants to govern ALL America. A progressive could NEVER do that.

[Nyland8]

LOL

8 is on Earth.

"Obama has the most left voting record of all 50 Senators."

A declaration that is nonsense on its face. Obama doesn't even have a voting record long enough to make that kind of assertion. With the exception of his stance on the war, even Joe Lieberman, an Uber-Hawk, is further to the left than Obama.

Barack Obama is a centrist by any measure.

8

[earthwealth]

Does anyone know what Ralph Nader has said about Democrats in reference to 2008 Election? It is well said and it is alarming!

[sf94127]

Obama did not spin himself as the centrist candidate when he ran against HRC. He positioned himself as the "change" candidate is is 180 from "old DC politics" on most major issues.

Now is he repackaging himself for the GE.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[SandWedge]

By change, he meant not another Bush or Clinton and not always bitter partisanship of Hillary's type.

[realtalk]

Obama will get our soldiers out of Iraq, John McCain WON'T! Obama will refocus our military on Afghanistan (where Bin Laden is), John McCain WON'T!
Obama WILL keep our country safe that is his first priority! Obama WILL provide the largest tax cuts to the 94% of the population that makes up the middle class, and the poor, John McCain WON'T! Obama WILL improve our educational system so that our children are the most well educated in the world, John McCain WONT improve the educational system!
Obama WILL aim to make health care affordable for everyone, John McCain WON'T! Obama WILL help students so they are able to afford to go to college, John McCain WON'T! Obama WILL provide jobs for millions by investing in green technology which will also help our country break it's dependency on oil from the middle east. Obama will also invest in clean renewable energy, and clean renewable energy technology

[DXP]

dream on.....

[genseric13]

Did Rev. Wright teach Barack to do all those things? He's going to a 14th century church but supposedly he is the New Man. The naivete is breathtaking in here.

[Nyland8]

Obama's ability to do anything is directly proportional to how many Republicans are driven from office this year and in '10. His power will be a function of his mandate.

If he has huge voter turnout and wins 46 States, he'll carry a lot of down-ticket Dems into office with him and he'll be free to accomplish a great deal. Conversely, if he barely squeaks by McMadman and a lot of Republicans continue to hold seats in the House and Senate, he'll be relatively impotent.

Obama WILL do what he can with the power and support we invest in him, and with the continued oversight of the electorate to guide his hand.

Obama WON'T accomplish a single thing if his party does not control overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress.

8

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

That's what's critical. It isn't just about who's president.

[3arthling]

And two weeks ago, you could have also said John McCain will strip us of 4th Amendment protections and Obama won't.

[Alethia]

Arianna, you are 100% right!
Obama's liberal, brave stance has given "hidden" voters huge inspiration!
If Obama retreats on issues like the Iraq War to satisfy the mediocre thinkers, then I will go back into my shell for another 100 years and not vote again in november.

[SandWedge]

Obama has always been more centrist than Hillary overall. It's just she was more pro-war than him. He hasn't changed much, it's just people projected onto him a kind of moveon.org liberalism that was never there.

[Nyland8]

"Obama has always been more centrist than Hillary overall"

Yes ... because she is further to the right than he is.

8

[metsfan1]

Like Arianna, I feel that Condi Rice using the word proud was reprehensible. Proud???? What is she proud of? That she supported Bush's extreme dictates like the good little Fascist she is? As for Obama, all I can say is you asked for oh naive ones and you got it. Hillary Clinton is a much more apt leader and would not back down like Obama does on so many issues.

[NotMcCain]

Are you kidding? Hillary was the Queen of Triangulation. And she "reinvented" herself and "found her voice" at least 5 times in a 17 month campaign.

No, we're lucky to have Obama as our nominee. The only question is: is he lucky to have US?

We Democrats really need to have his back--to be more supportive than critical of each other (for a change)--at least until Jan 20, 2009.

Can we do it?

Yes we can! (hopefully)

[realtalk]

continued form above.....

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Obama WILL give our middle class, and poor senior citizens tax breaks so that they are not living in poverty, are able to pay their rent, and buy food, and afford any medication they may need, John McCain WON'T be doing any of that!
Obama WILL protect social security, so that it will be there for all of us in the future , John McCain WON'T (John McCain wants to privatize social security).
Obama will make sure that women are paid equally as a man for the same work performed, John McCain WON'T (John McCain has already voted AGAINST this, and insultingly said that WHAT women need is NOT equal pay, but more education, and training)

[NTO08]

How do you know Obama will do anything?

I just love it when I hear people make these assumptions that are based on mere words...Obama is a politician first...he will say anything, do anything to achieve his goal of winning...operate from that premise, otherwise you are doomed to disappointment, as so many gullible and foolish Obamabots have been already...this is just a prelude to more to come from Obama.

[realtalk]

So why are you voting for John McCain? How do you know John McCain will do what he promises. If there is one politician I don't trust it is John McCain who in one instance said that he could NOT in good conscience vote FOR Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, when middle class American were struggling, YET NOW John McCain is adopted Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as his economic plan -------- SO WHAT HAPPEN TO JOHN McCAIN'S CONSCIENCE??

If I were you I would worry about that!!!
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT Barack Obama knows what is needed for the working class citizens of this country. John McCain is a clueless idiot, with NO care or understanding for the working American, after all the man has a wife with $100 million dollars in the bank.

[530Rose]

We don't know that Obama will do all that, but we do know FOR CERTAIN that McBush won't. Maybe we should have the audacity to HOPE.

[3Gs]

I think O man's recent come back on FISA, and his obviously righteous stance on a spiritual practice (that transends words), pretty much trumps this story, Miss H. It's time to take a breath, regroup and re-evaluate the situation. Face it, BO is way ahead of us in the evolutionary order.

[NTO08]

I think you need to check yourself in to Bellevue...one of the nuttiest comments I have ever read here.

[Chandidevi]

Powerful, straight-forward talk by Arianna! Great!