Capitol Hill Caution

Cross-posted at OpenLeft.com

As readers of OpenLeft know, I am one of those folks who personally doesn't like to criticize the Democratic Presidential nominee once the general election campaign gets underway. For me, as I have written, whatever faults they exhibit in the campaign almost never outweigh the risk of doing anything to damage their chances of winning. I believe in gritting my teeth and muttering curses to myself whenever they disappoint me, but not saying much critically in public and doing whatever I am asked to do to help the team win.

However, when the campaign is drifting seriously off course and threatening their chances to win, I make an exception on the no criticism rule. And I fear we're reaching that point. I think I know what the problem is, too. It's that Capitol Hill Caution has taken over the campaign.

It's no accident that the only two Democrats to win the Presidency since 1968 were governors who were from small states, far away from DC, unaffected by the Culture of Caution that tends to grip Democrats on Capitol Hill, and that those nominees most shaped by the Capitol Hill culture in that same period- Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Gore, Kerry- all ended up losing. Good legislators are consensus builders, good at crafting compromises, always aware of all the ideological and regional factions you need to get the votes. They tend to be more naturally cautious than a governor or mayor or general with executive experience, and more cautious than a candidate trying to win a national election ought to be.

My hope was that Obama would be more like JFK in that although he was a Senator, he was enough of an outsider and confident enough in himself that he was not infected by the Culture of Caution. Much of the time in the campaign he has shown that kind of confidence and strength. But I fear that, at least for the moment, the Capitol Hill Culture of Caution has taken hold of the campaign.

I'm not even talking about the much commented-on move to the center. While, as I have written, I don't think he needed to do this and in fact felt like a more open call for bold new thinking would have been a better general election strategy, I haven't minded the centrist shift as much as some others in progressive politics. It is, after all, a pretty predictable playbook move, one that most candidates in both parties have done for many years. And the Westen/Greenberg research I wrote about the other day showed that while Democrats could take clear stands on controversial issues and still win, it also showed that centrist-sounding inoculation language on those issues was necessary to win majorities on those issues.

What I'm talking about instead is the sense of overall caution that seems to have utterly infected the campaign. Instead of having the confidence to win the bigger argument on investing in alternative energy production and conservation, they make the shift on drilling. Instead of pushing back firmly and assertively on the race card accusation, they have the campaign's reply be "No, we're not playing the race card." Instead of having the confidence to really negotiate with McCain on debate formats, they fell into the we'll-just-do-what-candidates-have-always-done formats. Instead of having the confidence to lay out some of his good new ideas on foreign policy that are clearly different from the Bush doctrine in his widely watched Berlin speech, he stuck to cautious generalities. Instead of having the confidence to back up his strong and effective primary rhetoric on FISA and NAFTA, he cautiously moved towards the conventional wisdom.

I am haunted by this because of my past experience with Capitol Hill-shaped "wisdom" around elections -- being told by my brilliant young friend David Plouffe, who was running the DCCC in 1998, that the PFAW/MoveOn.org time to move on regarding impeachment campaign was a huge mistake, when in fact it was the theme that ended up turning the tide on congressional elections in our favor that year; being told by Gore's people in 2000 that if they just didn't respond to the NRA's attacks on the gun issue, the issue wouldn't have an impact; being told by Gephardt's top aides in 2002 that the only way to win the congressional elections that fall was to "take the war off the table" so that Democrats could get on with other issues; being told by Kerry's team in 2004 that if they just ignored the Swift Boaters, they wouldn't get any attention.

Caution kills when it comes to national elections, and the caution of my friends in Obamaland is hurting him. It's why despite the good coverage of the overseas trip and one gaffe after another by McCain, Obama is drifting down in the polls. And in an election where it is very likely we will lose some older blue collar white voters a Democrat would normally get, caution will kill us in the fall by dampening the enthusiasm Obama has sparked among young voters and new voters in the primary.

The Obama campaign's caution is allowing the McCain's campaign to define Obama and the terms of the debate -- and as Drew Westen points out here, they are doing much of it at the unconscious level. Obama needs to be direct about confronting the image of him that the McCain team is trying to create. Unfortunately, as the stories above suggest, the Democratic establishment has generally tended to be fearful about confronting their attackers directly. On impeachment, on war and national security, on Swift Boat attacks, on NRA attacks about guns, on immigration, on way too many issues, the establishment Democratic response has been to avoid the issues on which they are being attacked. But our recent history has proven again and again that avoidance of problematic attacks doesn't work -- you have to have the confidence to answer back and define the debate in your own terms.

I feel the tightness in my friends in Obamaland: they know that all the dynamics favor the Democrats, that McCain is a weak, uninspiring candidate running a weak, uninspired campaign. They know they should be winning this thing, and they are playing not to lose, which is the worst thing you can do in Presidential politics. The Obama team at the top hasn't been good at getting help or letting people in the door, because they feel sure that if they stay in control of the message, they will win. But, to my wonderful friends on the inside of the campaign, it's time to loosen the reins a little, not be so tight and careful and cautious, because you are in real danger with the course you are on.

Comments

[PumaAnn]

You have my sympathies. I saw it tighten up Hill. It's the curse of the front-runner! Alas, O's got the worst of it. A front-runner who is getting dished on because his front-runner lead is so anaemic.

[JimR]

Ann, Ann, Ann... I am disappointed in you. You know national polls are virtually meaningless! As you know full well, we use the Electoral College to elect a president. So state polls provide a more accurate picture. Polls should always be taken with a grain of salt, but last I checked, every state-by-state roundup shows Obama with a commanding lead.

[abby4ever]

Which you will not doubt take with a grain of salt...

[Zito]

If the Democrats lose this election, the party should be disbanded. Heck, not sure it should happen even if they win. They have sat back and allowed the Bush administration to engage in criminality unchecked. They have ceded the checks and balances so fundamental to our democracy. I am not sure which is worse, the Republican criminals or their Democratic accomplices.

Obama is showing the backbone of an eclair. If the Democrats cannot win the whitehouse in this environment, they have no reason to exist as a party.. They are useless...

[heal57]

I don't see it that way. I think Obama has done everything right. His doddering opponent just gets worse each day and is aging right before our eyes. I predict an Obama win big time. Just listen to the man; he's brilliant on every topic and the whole world is watching him. For moral leadership, he's the one. He says we will be off foreign oil in 10 years once he's elected. I have no doubts. Theres way too much credit given to MSM. It's a different world now, thanks to the young people.


Independent Arizonian for Obama '08

[dumboldfarmer]

It's early, folks. Wait until after the conventions are over and watch the campaign hit high gear.
Don't want to peak too early.

[JimR]

Exactly. Once the Olympics are over, and the conventions start, that's when things will start to happen.

[Herrington]

Bill Clinton didn't invent it, but he practiced it with an uncanny fervor, turn every question into an opportunity to bang the talking point drum. Drove me nuts. There was no reason even to listen to what he had to say. But he won and his methods are therefore golden, enshrined in the temple of Democratic myth.

Therein is the problem. The caution.

If it has not been poll tested, you must not utter it. It makes a candidate seem wooden at the very least. And wooden is untrustworthy, scripted is untrustworthy, caution is untrustworthy. All give the appearance of hiding something.

Obama has walked this path recently with Clinton. He had a perceptible lead after Super Tuesday and sat on it. Sports analogies are generally lost on the Huffpost consumer, but there is no more appropriate analogy than a football team with the lead becoming cautious as to the plays they call. And the football team does it for the same reason that political campaigns do it, to avoid a mistake. And sometimes they outsmart themselves.

This is what we are dealing with in Obama's campaign now, worry whether or not he will outsmart himself trying not to lose. From my perspective, and to use another sports analogy, Obama can score touchdowns at will so he need not worry about losing whether it be through caution or lack of it. He needs to be concerned about leading the country. Victory will follow.

[Maverick80229]

Perhaps the Obama campaign is keeping their powder dry in case McC ain is NOT the Republican nominee.

Why spend time and money fighting "He Who Yells At Clouds" when Mittens, the Jebster, or someone else might be taking the podium at the convention in Minnesota?

[provgrays]

It's incredible that a speaker as inspiring as Obama will not cobble together an adequate response to McCain's lies and innuendo. He is proving to be a milquetoast in this campaign.

Obama, wake up!!

[JimR]

Calm down. It's frickin' summertime. The campaign hasn't even STARTED yet. This is just piddly stuff.

[JailNeoconVicts]

Obama's camp should have an updated daily response ad titled:

"The McCain Campaign: Another Day, Another Lie"

And just keep them coming.

[rbloom]

EXACTLY!
Here's an idea for a TV ad: Start with an out-of-focus photo and on the bottom a progress bar that creeps past 10%, 20% etc as the photo becomes clearer. The bar is labeled "Voted with Bush:". When it hits 100%, the photo is revealed to be the one of McCain with his face buried in Bush's armpit.
I'll leave it to someone else to figure out the voiceover -- something like "McCain says he's a maverick, but when you look at the record, the real picture comes into focus. McCain has voted with George Bush 100% of the time. Do we really want four more years of George Bush?" It's a visual you could use with several different voiceovers to highlight individual issues or whatever. The important part is the visual.

[phae100]

rbloom:

love it!

[long333]

People keep saying that Obama should show McCain with Bush in various ways. I wonder if that is effective on people who hate him (like posters here) but would backfire as avoiding the issues or something to a neutral voter. I have to believe they test all this stuff out on people and that would have to be at the top of the list. I heared that everything is poll tested.

[MikeLee7125]

I couldn't disagree more. The problem (if there is one, with Obama leading in every poll, the same as he's been doing since the start) has nothing to do with either campaign and everything to do with the times.

The times are truly a changin' and about half the country is being caught flat footed so they're resisting. They're still going with the sad old ways like more drilling to solve our energy crisis despite every single statistic telling them it'll do nothing at the pump. Obama is offering a true paradigm shift. I know the phrase has been beaten to death by corporate jargon numbskulls but this time it is true. And if you follow the history of paradigm shifts they look a lot like this election.

[JKoos]

BO is same old, same old. No new ideas, just hype. He should be ahead by 15 points right now, but his chance has already passed him by. McCain will win in a landslide.

[PioneerKing]

MIKE:

The Clintons and the main stream media defined Obama a 18 months ago; to the republicans he's just another black man who will become fodder for a typical republican campaign - short on substance, long racism and bigotry.

[certainot]

obama could go one step further and go straight to the source. most of the groundwork for the mccain attacks is being done on the talk radio monopoly. obama can get aggressive and they'll paint him as a angry black man, and so on.

dem candidates and their strategists need to finally realize limbaugh and hannity were underpaid at 1/2 BIL$. the talking heads are always ready to jump on the talk radio monopoly bandwagon of uncontested repetition and gorge from the prechewed talking points. obama may have more money and may be able to buy more ad time but he can't compete in radio and it reaches 50-70MIL 24/7 in every corner of the country. if the TV ads are a wash the radio more than makes up for all the advantages obama has .

Dem pundits will continue to strategize in a vacuum until they realize where the GOP power centers are- the local talk radio stations.

while the country is trying to figure out who the candidates are it is essential that obama remind America that limbaugh and the talk radio empire represent the real republican party - not so much mccain or the lame bush. he and his team and dems need to address the talk radio problem or they will continue to get whacked by an invisible talk radio 2x4 while going nuts arguing about which broken bone to splint first.

[ESerafina42]

If he can't respond to unfair attacks for fear of being labeled an "angry black man," then this country is NOT ready for a black president, because he's fighting with one hand tied behind his back, and I find that very depressing. But since he'll lose if he lets the R's define him, he might as well take the risk, as far as I'm concerned. He wasn't my first choice, but next to McCain, he looks like an angel of light.

[certainot]

as long as they have the biggest soapbox in the country and progressives ignore that fact the GOP will have complete control of the framing

[long333]

Good comments. Everyone needs to exit the echo chamber to know what the dialogue is.

There is a famous story about a woman is at a party in Manhattan after Nixon was elected in 1972 landslide and said to another woman, "I can't believe Nixon won I don't know anyone who voted for him".

Everyone tends to hang out with like-minded souls and can have little idea what is happening elsewhere.

[grendl]

Barack sometimes seems like he sitting in a carnival dunk tank, waiting for someone to hit the target.

Deflecting attacks as they come, hoping the arms of his opponents will weary, a tactic that worked in the primaries, but also nearly backfired following his string of victories, as Hillary's camp was able to score with soccer moms and 3 a.m. calls.

He should be slaughtering McCain in the polls, and the only reason he isn't is because he's black. Either that or the still angered HRC contingent who have cut off sex with their husbands Lysistrata style, now withhold their political support from Obama intent on teaching the world a lesson.

The feeble attempts to paint him as some sort of pop icon, linking him to Paris and Britney, the preposterous shots at him for actually being popular with our allies, these are things Barack shouldn't simply brush off his shoulders. He needs to go after McCain, just as he did with Hillary.

And this country is still bitter, Barack, don't get too swept away in your cult of personality love fest.

[PATina]

I have become so disappointed in this campaign. All of the hope and promise that Sen. O embodied during the primary and immediately afterwards has been squandered on what you so aptly describe as "caution". Even if he does win... I really don't know what that will mean. Will he concede on his health care plan in the spirit of compromise? Neither do I get how any of this 'compromise' helps him win. Seriously.­... If I'm one of those polled who supports off shore drilling..­. why wouldn't I just vote for Mc Cain?

I guess Sen O really can't help himself. He's a democrat..­. and they seem determined to continually lose elections. How many losses will it take for them to realize that the "go along to get along" strategy just doesn't work.

[certainot]

yeah, its time to vote republican . after 8 years of the most incompetence and corruption the white house has ever seen, why take a chance on democrats just because they 'seem' to want change. what if they don't really? better stick with the republicans, seriously, at least you won't have to worry about change.

PS dems won the last two elections and if you republicans think Americans are going to fall for that again.....

[ShoshanaNY]

Well said, certainot. This election will be lost not by Obama, but by people like us not getting behind him, and fighting to win. The reason Republicans win elections is not because their ideas are better, it's because they all unite. We need to steal this lesson from their playbook, and unite to make Barack Obama our next president.

[PumaAnn]

He never was the "one."n He was always just a politician.