Yesterday, breaking my vows of chastity and humility, I shamelessly solicited recommendations from those fed up with posts that sift through data to make the implausible claim that somehow we’re right where we want to be at this stage of the game. These posts come in many flavors, but in my (humble) view elevate wishful thinking above the sober reality that we have ample reason to fear. I received a number of responses (as usual thoughtful and informed) calling my attention to another pernicious side of the same coin. These are the posts prematurely lamenting the state of the race in near apocalyptic terms. In the interest of fairness and balance, I thought I’d devote equal time to them.

You know the type. The theme usually goes something like this: It was “Obama’s race to lose, which is about the only thing he’s doing a good job of.” This is followed by some example of how Obama is blowing it and a prescription for the only way he can salvage his campaign before it’s too late – if it isn’t already.

Many of our beloved dissidents are former Hillary supporters (I am one myself, so I know whereof I speak) still carrying their disappointment and hanging on to their belief that Clinton would have made a better candidate. Obama’s perceived stumbles validate this view and an undercurrent of “I told you so” permeates their criticism. At the least there is often an implicit comparison in which Obama comes out on the short end.

In yesterday’s Slate, Christoper Beam reviews (to comic effect) the conflicting advice urged on Obama by the backseat drivers.  To summarize for those who can’t bear to tear themselves away and check out the link: Tie McCain to Bush!/Don’t Just Tie McCain to Bush!; Get Mad!/Don’t Get Mad!; Take the High Road!/Lie Like McCain!; Go After Palin!/Ignore Palin!; Use The Clintons!/Ignore the Clintons!; Fewer Big Rallies!/More Big Rallies!; Screw the 50 State Strategy!/Screw the Swing States!; Get Specific!/… But Not Too Specific. If you ask me, my advice to Obama would be continue being yourself. Gore and Kerry both tried to be someone else. Let’s not go there again. On the other hand, you need to talk more about the economy in ways people will understand, punch up your answers, etc. . How easy to fall into that trap.

The constant second guessing seems a uniquely Democratic phenomenon. Rarely do we see the Republicans savaging their own with the same gusto. Sure, James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh had their problems with McCain, but now that they’re back in the fold, united against the common enemy (which includes the vast majority of Americans), we hear scarcely a peep from disaffected Republicans (More insidiously, David Brooks affects a phony stance of disagreement while surreptitiously carrying Republican talking points.)  Maybe it's the effect of losing so many elections. Or maybe that’s why we lose elections. Maybe that’s just our nature.

To state the obvious, the race right now is a tossup. It never really was “Obama’s to lose.” In fact, he’s always faced a hard road as an outsider with an unconventional biography, a young, relatively unproven, African American candidate.  It really does require a leap of faith.  That he's convinced so many thus far is an amazing story.  And let's not forget he's running against the only Republican seen as independent of Bush whose long love affair with the media is only now beginning to wane. Even as the press bemoans the dishonesty of the McCain campaign, they can’t help but point out what an honorable person he is. That’s a tough image to crack.   

So, you ask, if I decry in equal measure misplaced confidence and premature fatalism, what’s a poor boy to do? Well, you could turn your fury against me for leading you on this fruitless endeavor. You could move on to other, worthier topics like trout fishing in Alaska or the financial crisis. You could continue reading both types of posts as, truth be told, there are many interesting and worthy points made on both sides. Or you could get out and do your best to make sure Obama wins this Fall and we all go home happy.

Finally, I only reiterated my whoring for recs in the interest of symmetry. It is a practice of which I strongly disapprove. In fact, I don’t even care if anyone recommends this one.

There have been a spate of posts recently professing that everything is going fine, that there is nothing to worry about, that Team Obama has everything under control. 

Sometimes, the posts delve into the minutiae of the latest polls, explaining that, yes, while Obama may be trailing in Ohio or some other crucial swing state, the fundamentals are sound.  Statistics are broken down into their component parts to show the solidity of his support among this or that sub-group.  In the end, the poster arrives at the pre-ordained conclusion.  Look beneath the numbers that show Obama trailing and they will show that he is marching to a certain victory.  Generally, the logic is inscrutable, the details mind-numbing, so who's to argue?  

A second variant is the, "don't worry, we trust Axelrod and the campaign.  They vanquished the 'Clinton Machine,' so this old coot McCain and the scary-dumbass Palin will make easy pickings.  Just wait and see.  The plan will unfold."  Some have even gone so far as to say that Obama is employing a rope-a-dope strategy.  Obama is intentionally letting McCain take his best shots, absorbing them, and will emerge at the end the stronger fighter.  Somehow, Obama's falling behind is seen as an ingenious master plan.  Call me a cynic, but I'm fairly confident that falling behind at this stage was not part of the master plan.  

Another variant is to say, don't bother with the polls.  Obama's voters aren't counted.  We're relying on the ground game, which is more highly developed than McCain's.  It's hard to answer this one except to say that my recollection was that (with the exception of North Carolina), the polls during the primary season actually overestimated Obama's strength.   

Those who profess unease with the direction the election is headed in, or with Obama's 'strategy' - if in fact there is one at this point - are dismissed as "concern trolls."  I'm certainly no troll, whatever that life form may entail.  I am squarely behind Obama and will be heading out to those swing states soon to try to swing them the right way.  Nor am I "concerned."  Actually, alarmed would be the better term.  Shocked.  Dismayed.  Freaked out.  As I sit here wondering how McCain has seized the initiative and is fighting the election on his turf while Obama seems headed in the direction of other recent candidates of our party - complaining about the underhanded and dishonest tactics of his opponent, chastising the so-called MSM and insisting that he is correct on the issues while being drowned out by the Republican noise machine.  

Yes, there is plenty of time, and much that can change between now and November (the financial meltdown being one, as I watch my life savings disintegrate, another source of agita contributing to my expanding ulcer).  Obama will have a good opportunity to present his agenda in the debates.  But I am not comforted by wishful thinking and cheerleading that avoids the reality:  things are not going well and we need to turn this thing around now.  

Finally, this is the first time I have explicitly requested a "recommend" -- a practice I find generally distasteful in others and for which I am somewhat embarrassed, though not enough to refrain from "trolling"     

During the primaries, Obama managed to catch fire with an amorphous message of “change.”  The lack of a clear definition worked to his benefit.  To some, it meant a candidate who opposed the war from the beginning.  To others, it meant a different kind of politics, elevating civil discourse, empowering individuals and freeing government from the corrupting influence of lobbyists.  Others hoped to usher in an era of sweeping liberalism in contrast to the “poll-tested” “small-bore” initiatives and perceived centrism of the Clintons.  Still others saw in Obama himself the personification of change, of reconciliation between red and blue, liberal and conservative, and most important, black and white.  By presenting himself as the candidate of change - a concept that he allowed to mean different things to different people - Obama skillfully to set himself up as an alternative for a Party fed up with leaders perceived as having failed to stand up to the Bush administration. 

 

But by failing to offer a concise and compelling definition of “change,” however, the Obama campaign seems to have lost the initiative.  It has been distressing to watch over the past few weeks as 26-year Senate veteran McCain, representing the party of the deeply unpopular incumbent has managed to wrest the mantle of “change” away from Obama. 

 

Sure, McCain’s message of “change” seems to consist entirely of his opposition to earmarks (true in his case, patently false in the case of his running mate), an infinitesimal portion of the federal budget that mostly goes to fund worthy projects such as hospitals and schools.  But by focusing on a few extreme examples, he has captured some of the disgust with Washington that fueled Obama's success and portrayed himself as a genuine reformer.  Similarly, while the rest of his party, egged on by his noxious running mate, spews a steady stream of toxic rhetoric, McCain himself points to the few occasions in which he has bucked his party to further his bona fides as someone not afraid to take on his own party. 

 

The challenge for Obama now is to reclaim the change mantle.  Complaining about McCain’s underhanded and dishonest campaign tactics will not do.  Obama’s response thus far is eerily reminiscent of the Republican primary of 2000, when one George W. Bush beat back John McCain’s “reform” message by re-branding himself a “reformer with results.”  McCain’s response was outrage over the sleazy campaign of his opponent.  We all know who won the nomination. 

 

Yes, Obama needs to call out the deep dishonesty of the “straight talking” McCain, and to remind voters that on matters of significance, he really does represent “more of the same.”  But to capture the imagination of voters, Obama needs to put some meat and bones on his message of “change” that will set him up as the real alternative.  In other words, Obama needs to articulate more specifically the type of change he stands for, to give people a reason to vote for him. 

 

As always, I am interested in people’s thoughts as to how best to accomplish this, or alternatively, as to the utter pointlessness of such an exercise, and by extension, this post.