Priceless! That pretty much sums up the last three weeks.

Great! Sounds like what we keep hearing from all those bitter Hillary clones

Excellent. Thank you.

Wrong. He's now trying not to lose the election.

Which is a losing strategy in itself.

In fact, this "move to the center" stuff has been the losing strategy of the DLC and the Democratic consultants for the last thirty years. It's the Mark Penn/Terry McAuliffe strategy.

Luckily, lots of others realize what Borowitz doesn't.

Brent Budowsky:

The possibility is growing for a wholesale public revolt against everyone in Washington, with the nominees of both parties giving away their specialness as political brands.

John McCain is the worst offender, following Bush 44 policies and now bringing in the Karl Rove team to run his campaign. ...

Obama, meanwhile, appears to have an issue a day of repositioning, triangulating and maneuvering. Even his fundraising model appears to move away from his inspiration of small donors to a standard-issue model of big players going to $30,000-a-head events.

I was an early and strong supporter of Obama and remain so unequivocally. He must move toward the center, to some degree, as the primary season ends and general election begins. Some of these moves make sense and others do not, but cumulatively the sheer number of tactical shifts and almost daily events of this kind are disconcerting.

If this continues, I predict Obama regrets it.

Before Borowitz's "argument" was even written, Arianna Huffington thoroughly destroyed it.

As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

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? ...

Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call it Obama Zero. ...

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and "change we can believe in." I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand.

Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.

Not the entire argument, by any means. Just follow the link.

Heh heh. I love to see people fighting satire with earnest arguments. It's like trying to paddle a boat up a staircase, and it makes the satire so much more fun.

The bloggers you quoted are not above the same question I asked of you. Are they ignorant half-wits or do they harbor darker motives? I suspect the former.

Awesome! Exposed at last.

Classic. Highy recommended

God I love you so, liam.

You are so damn witty - LOL!!!!