There a paragraph in today’s front-page New York Times piece on Barack Obama that caught my eye.
His senior aides said they were now spending much of their day fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters asking why Mr. Obama was not challenging Mrs. Clinton more forcefully and warning that he could cede the role of the main anti-Clinton candidate to former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is running an aggressive campaign in Iowa. Typically, one aide said, the supporter asks some version of the same question: “What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”
About a week ago, I heard Markos Moulitsas ask the same question, rhetorically, to Josh Marshall in a TPM-TV interview. If Obama set the political world on fire in that DNC speech in Boston three years ago, why doesn’t he rely on a similar message now as a presidential candidate?
I went back and listened to Obama’s whole convention speech again this morning to see what, exactly, was different. I noticed a few things. Most notably, Obama really hasn’t changed his message that much at all. I think the question, “What happened to the Obama we saw in 2004?” actually gets the broader dynamic backwards — Obama’s campaign may be struggling a bit in part because his message is too much like the 2004 speech.
If you have a few minutes, go ahead and take a look for yourself. Obama’s message was inspirational, but it also underscored a variety of themes, including an emphasis on unity and hope. There was barely a hint of red meat in the speech. He didn’t mention George W. Bush once. There were no references to Dick Cheney or congressional Republicans. Indeed, his only reference to the GOP at all was this: “Fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have more work to do.”
The most critical comment in the entire speech came in the very last sentence, when he referenced a “long political darkness” that will lead to “a brighter day.” It’s poetic, but not exactly hard-hitting.
“What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?” Not much. The more pertinent question is whether we’re seeing too much of the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention.
His message now seems practically identical. Obama’s still emphasizing hope and unity. His ads tout his ability to work with Republicans and independents. His stump speech still avoids partisan and/or ideological red meat. Obama didn’t seem particularly anxious to “go negative” on anyone in 2004, and he doesn’t seem particularly anxious to do so now, either.
As it turns out, though, voters may not be looking for the 2004 Obama at all. Voters, particularly the Democratic rank-and-file, aren’t so much interested in unity. Demonstrating a willingness to work with rivals across the aisle isn’t necessarily a selling point.
TNR’s Michelle Cottle explained this well a few weeks ago: “Few would deny that Obama is more inspirational than Hillary. But inspiration doesn’t seem to be what Dems are most in the mood for now. Sure it would be great if Obama could change the tone and bridge the divide and all that good stuff. But many, many Dems want their chance to land a few punches first. ”
Obama now seems ready to do just that.
Senator Barack Obama said he would start confronting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more directly and forcefully, saying Friday that she had not been candid in describing her views on critical policy issues, as he tries to address mounting alarm among supporters that his lack of assertiveness so far has allowed her to dominate the presidential race.
Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled — and in some cases shared — the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics.
In an interview on Friday that was initiated by his campaign to signal the change of course, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was not out to “kneecap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for,” he said she was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and was less likely than he was to win back the White House for Democrats.
Asked in the interview on Friday if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.”
Obama has tried really hard for a year to be a “different kind of presidential candidate,” pursuing a “different kind of politics.” He intentionally didn’t create a campaign war room, because that’s the old way of doing things. He intentionally didn’t go after his primary rivals, because that was conventional and same-old politics. He deliberately steered clear of red meat on the stump, because it didn’t fit into his vision of a new approach to politics.
But there comes a point at which one realizes that the old way became the old way through experimentation, trial and error, and ultimately, success. In Obama’s case, we’ll see if this realization has come too late.
Post Script: Responding to Obama’s criticism, the Clinton campaign, once again, argued that Obama is abandoning the “politics of hope.” That was a cute little response in August, but it’s wearing a little thin now.