There were two problems for Mr. Obama with this familiar syndrome. First, he had promised to be the personification (messiah?) of a new kind of politics, a conviction politician with a strong moral compass that would guide his politics. Instead, he lent credence to the many critics from Ms Clinton's camp who had alleged all along that he relied on content-free eloquence and slogans, that he was a false prophet who would show soon enough that if the voters did not like his principles, why, he had many others he could use. And, of course, the diehard Clinton supporters not only feel vindicated; they are even more resolute in rejecting Mr. Obama.
The other difficulty for Mr. Obama was the speed with which he changed course and the number of items on which he tacked swiftly to the centre. Nor is it over yet. On August 1, as a new opinion poll showed that a majority of Americans favour offshore drilling to cushion the shock of the inexorable rise in oil and petrol prices, Mr. Obama softened his previously firm opposition to offshore drilling. He had already either retreated from or, at best, refined and nuanced his evolving position on a number of hot button issues. One of the most momentous was voting for a new surveillance law that granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications operators for violating citizens' privacy laws by complying with requests for intelligence intercepts by the government. Other major policy somersaults included abandoning the promise of public financing for the campaign, softening his stance on gun control, equivocating on the status of Jerusalem, and endorsing church-based institutions to deliver public services.
A major reason why Mr. Obama finds himself boxed in a corner by the above two developments is the third failing of his campaign, namely his seeming inability to go on the offensive. In any game, the side that plays entirely on the defence in its own half cannot score and therefore cannot win. The best it can hope for is a scoreless tie. Mr. Obama got away with this in the primary, despite having such a target rich opponent, in part because Ms Clinton was the one who entered the contest as the anointed one, in part because it was assumed that Mr. Obama was too much of a gentleman to attack her. But he did repeatedly promise to go forcefully after his Republican opponent once he was the Democratic nominee. He is yet to do so and is running out of time. The failure to play offence means that the Republicans are succeeding in defining Mr. Obama on their terms while Mr. McCain continues to elude the limp barbs aimed at him. If the best that the Obama camp can do is to repeat ad infinitum the stale and wearying line that a vote for McCain would be a third term for George W. Bush, they can expect their slide in the polls to continue.
The Democrats need to reverse course rapidly in deifying Mr. Obama and humanise him instead; highlight some key issues on which he has shown backbone and the courage of convictions in contrast to vacillations, evasions and backflips by Mr. McCain; and target each and every one of Mr. McCain's perceived weaknesses and vulnerabilities with a relentless, laser-like focus. Time for the tough and ambitious Chicago politician to take command of the campaign.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/06/stories/2008080656051000.htm
