Why Is Obama Slipping? Because He Won't Say Which Side He's On.
Why is Barack Obama slipping in the polls? Here's why:
"In a Washington Post-ABC News poll, Obama's edge on the economy has slipped to only five percentage points, a low for the campaign."
That's really sad on a lot of levels, especially when you consider the contours of the candidates' tax plans:
"All taxpayers would receive a cut under McCain's plan. Taxes for those who make less than $226,982 would go down under Obama's proposal and they would rise for those who make more than $603,403. Obama would give the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy."
Then again, even considering those facts, I'm not really surprised. Because Obama has refused to really focus on the issues that really draw a crystal clear contrast - issues like trade and the Iraq War. Thus, what policy debate that has survived is one over policy details - ie. whose tax plan is better, rather than, say, why McCain is happy telling Ohioans NAFTA is awesome.
This goes back to what I've been saying for months. Obama refuses to answer the fundamental question - that historical question always asked by organized labor: Which side are you on?
Oh sure, he answers the question on candidate questionnaires, where he commits to strong positions, and his convention speech was a momentary flash of real populist vigor (raising the question of whether it be as fleeting as Gore's 2000 "people versus the powerful" convention speech that boosted his numbers and then was thematically abandoned).
But in most of the public debate, Obama essentially says that question doesn't need to be answered - that he's a consensus builder on everyone's side, and that, as he suggested in my interview with him for The Nation in 2006, he can avoid real confrontations. As he said:
"The question is, Do you let confrontations arise as a consequence of your putting forward a positive vision of what needs to happen and letting the confrontation organically emerge, or do you go out of your way for it?"
The answer on a campaign (which is, after all, an electoral confrontation) is not to "let confrontations organically emerge" - that's the way to be on the defensive all the time. No, the answer on a campaign is yes, go out of your way to shape, build and embrace confrontation in a way that draws a contrast. And in a country whose crises are now so binary - bankers versus homeowners, Wall Street versus Main Street, neocons versus American troops, the wealthy versus the rest of us - Obama's rhetorical posture suggesting that he can be on everyone's side doesn't ring true. It's not an answer to the question "which side are you on" - it's a dodge.
He has to choose a side. Should we read his silence on an issue like trade to mean he is with the the Wall Streeters, insiders and elites that he has surrounded himself with on his campaign - the people who say that the majority of the country that opposes NAFTA should be ignored?
Or is he going to - finally - start publicly declaring that he's taking the majority's side in the struggle to stop the Republicans class war, elites be damned?
Which side are you on, Barack? You've only got a few weeks left to forcefully answer that question - it's just barely enough time, but it's enough. But if you don't, the McCain people are right - this will not be a campaign about issues, and it won't be a Democratic victory.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I always enjoy reading David Sirota, and the various comments. No One wants to or wishes to bring up "the Bradley Effect" It is there, it is lingering, and it will show its ugly head. The polls are tightening because, not because of issues, not because of personalities, but because of Obama's color of his skin. And don't tell me, "we are above that", Bull@^#%. As long as the race is tight nationally, as well as "swing states", McCain will win. Let me tell you I'm not a McCain fan, even though many Hispanics are, there is still a reai race polariization in our country (Immigration, black unemployment, intimidation- nooses, Katrina, ICE raids). These are not examples of racial unity. What David has said may be true, but that is not he whole story. Obama should be 10 to 15 points a head as of now, in order to offset "the Bradlet Effect". Race is McCain's trump card, and he doesn't even need to use it.
He is clearly pro-NAFTA. It's obvious.
"...that historical question always asked by organized labor: Which side are you on?"
Organized labor is very clear "which side" Barack Obama is on.
And if you're not just saying this to fill space and really don't know, Sirota, then you're dumber than a stump.
"And if you're not just saying this to fill space and really don't know, Sirota, then you're dumber than a stump."
My thoughts exactly...
Somebody needs to tell the Minnesota and Michigan Police Unions; I don't think they got the memo.
Now, let's see, just what is the difference between Obama and McCain? -- color? age? Ah well, its too bad the Liberals also helped the Republican McCainites stifle the only fellow who did want real change -- Ron Paul. -- Saddle up Sheepies, we're off to Iran!
We will be off to Iran and have to deal with the former Soviet Union and Korea no matter who is elected. The question is who do you want playing chess with Putin?
He's floundering- trying to be all things to all people is the path to mediocrity, which I don't believe he is...
Look how Palin energized their base, while Obama abandoned his.
to read this you'd think he met with james fallows- not rupert murdoch. you'd think he opposed war in thre middle east instead of demanding war in afghanistan. you'd think he put 4th amendment rights first- not protected telecoms who report to the government. you might even think he abided by public financing- not that he went his own way when it looked like he had more money. you might even get the idea he appointed the most popular democrat besides himself to run with- not that he appointed a spokesman for the credit industry and passed him off as a foreign policy advisor.
there are a lot of misapprehensions you could get from reading this.
green '08- the party built on your own values that you refuse to support.
Shame “On You” So-Called Progressives
Democrats are losing because the so-called Progressives are politically stupid. A case in point; in the last 3-months, Senator McCain was not doing well and he was not written off by the Republicans. Republicans rallied around him and formed a common cause in attacking Obama. Just less than ten days, Sarah was inserted into the equation and she brought energy to the Republican ticket and party. What is the response from the Progressives; they shamelessly threw their hands in the air and started blaming Obama for an election due in Nov. 4. Shame Progressives! Shame Progressives! Shame Progressives!
If Progressives are not fighters, why do they expect to nominate a candidate that is a fighter? The problem is not Obama but the Progressives. They are sitting on their hands, pontificating, dissecting why Obama is going to lose in Nov. Fighters design new strategies when the current is not serving the purpose than to quit and pointing accusing finger on others while four fingers are pointing at them.
... one of the earlier indications that if obama loses, it will be the left's fault. (of course if he wins, it will be all his credit.)
I know. Its amazing how many so-called progressives are wringling their hands instead of digging deeper and offering solutions. Sirota, who commands some measure of respect from me, has been writing posts like this for months. Its amazing.
When Obama wins, it certainly won't be because of so-called progressives who refer to themselves of "true progressives" while trying denigrate Obama and others for not meeting a progressive litmus test, or adhering to 100% of the wishes of the prominent voices of the progressive movement.
.
Why are you two slamming Progressives now?
Y'all dissed them early on for saying that Obama would do precisely that which he has done since winning the Primaries...now you are dissing them for saying I told you so and not being sufficiently enthused about your choice. This guy was always an establishment candidate; establishment Democratic candidates invariably have milquetoast campaigns. Pull your own bacon out of the fire and stop blaming those who warned you.
yawn
Obama is slipping because his message is stale. His speeches and advertising has not chage in 9 months. He has become yesterday's news and last years fashion rage.
His style of delivery is what's stale. And everyone knows it but him.
Why is everybody talking with a defeat-like attitude?? I am tired of this!! ENOUGH!! If you are truly behind Barack, quit running scared. Everything is not going to be perfect. This will be a close election. We are not going to agree with everthing Obama says or anyone else. So, please stop all of this doom and gloom talk and get off your butts and do/say something positive!!
Barack's problem with the economy is that modrate Americans believe that increasing taxes on corporations will result in fewer jobs and higher prices.
Middle-class America knows that big business will simply pass the taxes down to the middle- and lower-classes. What good is getting a tax break when the corporations will only suck it up with higher prices?
When the economy is bleeding like a stuck pig, it's not the time to draw more blood.
The only answer is reducing government spending, not increasing taxes.
That will be Obama's downfall. And the fact that most liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin and can't seem to do anything but attack her -- big mistake.
to reduce govenment spending first and foremost ...you have bring down militiary spending and that can't be don't with the two front war America is waging at present.
until that's under control ...the economy will not be terribly stable not matter who gets what tax breaks.
I agree. He sounds more like John Kerry every day. Why can't he speak in simple, declarative sentences? Why does he come up with these convoluted constructions like, "If you think things have gone well for the last eight years, vote for John McCain. But if you think that it's time for America to move in a different direction, well, then you should vote for me."
What's wrong with, "McCain wants to start more wars, I want to end them"?
What's wrong with, "McCain won't get you health care, I will"?
What's wrong with, "McCain lies. I tell the truth"?
Obama has presented himself as the DLC alternative to Hillary since the very beginning of his campaign. His "centrism" has been touted for months as one of his primary assets. The Clintonian strategy of triangulation is once again on stage and reminding people that Bill Clinton ran on hope too...and gave us NAFTA, media conglomeration and banking deregulation.
Now, all of a sudden, those once again hypnotized by the words hope and change are whining because they didn't get the Progressive that they have always known Obama not to be. This has always been a race between a fascist and a Nixonian Republican. I'm just really not clear on where the problem is from the perspective of mainstream Democrats. The vast majority of Democratic Primary voters voted for Seventies style Republicans, and they got what they voted for.
I'm asking a real question here.
Is Obama too nice to become President? Not to BE President. But to BECOME President.
Where is the testosterone? Because on a gut level, that is what human beings respond to, and want in their leaders,
Please tell me that Sarah Palin does not have more testosterone than the man I voted for in the primaries!
He proved to me with his FISA vote that it is just business as usual. And the business of Democrats is capitulation and losing.
If he does manage to throw this thing, we should just disband this terrible party, because there will never be a better opportunity to beat the GOP.
The Dems bowed out quite a while ago. But yeah, if they can't beat the Repugs given the outrageousness of Bushco , I think it's official
If the GOP steals this election, we will all be reduced to corporate serfs, including the fools who vote for them. There WILL be a draft and your eligible kids WILL be sent to Iran to come home missing legs, or arms, or sight.
To TexasDemo The GOP has to steal the election. They haven't worked for years putting a unitary president in place just to step aside and allow a Democrat to take over. Why would they? Bush has his signing statements and his executive orders that allow him to do whatever he wants. Why would the Republicans turn that over to a Democrat?
We all should have kept that in focus when we let the midget states select our candidates for the rest of us. Does anyone really believe that we would have had Hillary and Obama if all 50 states had voted in primaries on the same day? They weren't the best, and now we are tragically suffering from that truly stupid method of picking candidates.
I am looking for a liberal candidate and progressive representatives. It's not Obama and they aren't in the house and senate. This race was lost from the outset.
Far not, Hillary will win in 2012.
Too bad she did not get the nomination this year. The race would be over. Hillary isn't scared by the big bad Republicans.
The Democrats could have locked up the White House for 16 years.
If we lose, it will be because of thew anger of white women who chose to desert either to make a point or because they can't bear to vote for a black man.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
