Today, the Obama campaign rejected General Wesley Clark's recent comments about John McCain's lack of foreign policy seasoning or executive experience.

This, to me, seemed clearly calculated to avoid a long debate about McCain's military service and parsing Clark's words.  As Greg Sargent also noted:

<blockquote>Clearly, the Obama campaign didn't want the dispute over the Clark comments to overshadow his big patriotism speech today. And they probably saw no percentage in getting into an in-the-weeds dispute about what Clark meant.</blockquote>

Clearly, on the patriotism issue, Obama is working hard to dispel the idea that he has a deficit in that department.  In fact, in his patriotism speech today, he also took a shot at MoveOn.org's controversial "General BetrayUs" ad mocking CENTCOM Commander David Petraeus.

<blockquote>All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments -- a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.</blockquote>

As a result of these and other public discussions designed to give Obama a greater foothold amongst the much-sought-after "Middle" voters, there's been a lot of criticism amongst those on the left that says Obama is a flip-flopper and a caver. 

Arianna Huffington, who has no unexpressed opinions, weighed in today with an article called "Memo to Obama:  Moving to the Middle is for Losers".  I found this passage particularly interesting:

<blockquote>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?</blockquote>

I believe the recent criticism of Obama - including Huffington's article - misses two central points.

(1) Moving to the middle, in and of itself, cannot be deemed a completely losing strategy.  Bill Clinton, despite all his personal peccadilloes, did exactly that - and beat an incumbent President and war-hero Senator in the process.

(2) Moving to the middle <b>weakly</b> can certainly be branded as a losing strategy. 

It is this distinction that I believe many people miss.  And it is this bear trap into whose jaws Barack Obama now stares.

Huffington takes the wrong lesson from Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Clinton fell into a big hole, NOT because she moved to the center, but rather because she did so meekly, with at least four or five different campaign messages between January 1 and March 1.  When Clinton finally got herself down as a moderate populist, and started standing firm on her positions, <i>that</i> is when she started gaining traction with voters. 

She went from being perceived as wishy-washy and untethered to being perceived as strong and principled - only because she finally stopped changing her positions.  Even on the gas tax holiday, when she faced near-universal ridicule, she wouldn't move.  As a result, even those who opposed her candidacy grew to give her grudging credit for her toughness.  Without that newfound resoluteness, Clinton wouldn't have made it to Pennsylvania.

Obama had much of the same appeal going.  He stuck to his Iraq meme throughout the primary, and refused to back down from being a liberal.  He took some hits for both stances, but stuck with them.  Many voters, disaffected by the last seven and a half years, decided that this guy would stand up for them - and with them. 

Now, Obama is trying to do what any smart Presidential candidate would do.  Having only the formal nomination to clear before being the official candidate, he's trying to get his general-election machine in gear and start appealing to the bloc of voters who will decide this election.

The only problem is, Obama at times appears to be doing that with small steps, hesitant gestures and a shaky voice. 

Take today's repudiation of Clark's comments.   Sargent makes a very good (if easy) case that what Clark said was absolutely true.  Obama could have easily talked about what Clark really said, and how it is factually accurate.  It would have then been easy to repudiate any attempt to argue against McCain's patriotism, thus adding to Clark's bright line drawn between heroic military service and Presidential qualifications, particularly on national security.

By not standing up for Clark, Obama accomplished several things, but none of them especially good.

(1) He's deleted an interesting option from the Veepstakes who seems tailor-made to address some of the biggest weaknesses Obama is perceived to have.

(2) He's virtually ensured Clark won't stump for him anytime soon - and like it or not, Clark is a good campaigner who gives instant national-security cred to a candidate he supports.

(3) He's essentially supported McCain's use of his POW status as a qualification for POTUS - and that is really the only serious qualification McCain brings to the table.

I've blogged repeatedly about my support for Obama.  That support hasn't dried up at all.  However, my humble advice to the presumptive Democratic nominee would be this:  take off the damn ballet shoes.  You win the White House by strapping on your work boots. 

One of the things I've always thought is a requirement to lead effectively is to convince people that you are right.  You may be wrong intellectually, but if enough people buy in with you, you become right by the sheer force of their support.   

If Obama wants to shift to the center, he can do so.  But don't do it with small, jelly-legged steps.  Stride manfully, with your shoulders thrown back, head held high, and plant your feet squarely in the middle ground.  Then, use those boots - and kick McCain back to the wingnuts when he tries to enter your ground.  Shift to the center - but walk firm on your way, and stand firm once you're there. 
 
Bill Clinton did this and won.  Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry all tried to do this - but looked fake doing it, and lost. And, as I've strongly implied throughout this post, it's the <b>perception</b> of weakness that will doom any candidate, even if there's no <b>actual</b> weakness. 

America won't elect a leader who won't stand firm.  (How else did George W. Bush win two terms?)  Use those boots, Senator - it's the only way to step through the mud and sludge the Republicans will put in front of you for the next four months.