Obama needs to show he isn't Clinton-lite.

[Kelly Rupert]

Clinton, with 48% to Obama's 23%, holds her most commanding lead yet. She's gained support in each of the last few weeks, as her Inevitability Machine rolls on. Meanwhile, Obama has been at 23% for the last month, and he hasn't broken 25 since July, and hasn't been within single digits of Clinton since June.

Why? Because, frankly, his campaign has yet to show that there's difference between them. On the trail, they've said the same cautious, reserved things about Iraq. They've both criticized Bush--of course. Where their intended foreign policies have differed, Clinton has come away looking better (judging by the polls taken before and after their few dust-ups). Both seem as if they would be roughly equally slow to move on healthcare; Obama's plan seems more progressive than Clinton's, but their rhetoric so far has been equally uninspiring.

Quite frankly, they're both playing it safe. Neither want to take risks; positives evaporate over time but negatives hang on you forever. Iit's so early that they both have more to lose than to gain. However, Obama is in the unique position of having a campaign based more on charisma than experience or policy. If he allows his exceptional image to become a mere also-ran, he risks losing what remains his only major advantage: his personal likeability.

Obama's problem is this: people don't see enough of a difference between him and Clinton. It comes down to who the primary voter thinks has a better shot of winning the White House. So far, it's Clinton, and the longer she leads by 20+ points the more steam her Inevitability Machine picks up. Obama then has three options:

1. Make himself more likeable, staying positive.
2. Make Clinton more unlikeable, going negative.
3. Create a strong policy difference.

He's trying #1 now, and it isn't working; he's staying steady while Clinton picks up supporters. #2 would be an utter disaster: Clinton, with her no-nonsense centrist bulldog image, can afford to go slightly negative without impacting her message. Obama's cheery hope-and-optimism-reformer image would be destroyed by a negative campaign, leaving his campaign in shambles. He's got to either go with #3, or join Richardson in the VP Derby. Obama needs to tack leftwards--his reformer image allows him to go farther left in the general election than most can--and sell his differences.

Come on, Barack. Show us you're a liberal. Attack Hillary's lack of a comprehensive health care plan--and give us something better than your expand-the-patchwork-quilt-of-coverage proposal. Demand soldiers out of Iraq. Demand we sign Kyoto. Forget "gradual 4% CAFE improvements;" challenge Detroit to match European fuel standards. You've painted yourself into a corner in many ways, but it's early--and even still, differences do exist. You have time to find and exploit them. Just don't waste it.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. He is what is.

Interesting, somewhat the novice, good speaker when well prepared.
He needs to stop saying we should compromise and make nice with the Republicans.
He'll make a fine Vice President, unless he goes negative and becomes just another John Edwards.

[wyldwolf]

2. the problem is, he IS Clinton lite

Like you just pointed out, he's done little to distinguish himself, their policies are very similar, and in his book "The Audacity Of Hope," he express great admiration for Clinton's third-way politics. In fact, the book reads like a personalized DLC handbook. Sure, it's written better than anything Al From could ever write, but the message is the same.

[Bitwit1234]

3. I think Obama screwed up. He would have made a good president the next time.

What happened his ego got the better of him. He believed that this country would elect him now. He let people talk him in to announcing his candidacy too soon. Too soon in the campaign and too soon for the nomination. This country might accept a woman, but they are not ready to accept a black person for president. What he should have done is make his mark in the senate. Make his mark in how good a president he would be. In other words show the world he has got it.

I still think in a few years he would be a damn good president. Since he won't make it this time, I hope the people don't classify him as a looser as they do Edwards. Who would make a damn terrific president. But I think he lost his chance also. And that too darn bad.

[DURHAM D]

4. I have felt for some time that he is positioning

himself to be picked as VP with Hillary. Eight years from now when he is older and has more experience he will be perfectly positioned to run as President and win.

It would be harder for him to run from the senate in eight because of a longer voting record -so he should go live at the Naval Observatory.

[Kelly Rupert]

8. I don't think it's a matter of his race.

That's a non-issue, I'm fairly sure. I do agree that he would have been better served by waiting until 2012 or 2016; with some experience to back him up, he would have been unstoppable then. As it stands, he'd make a good President, but he isn't explaining how he'd make a better President than Clinton. If he honestly can't, he's got no chance to overtake her at this point.

[Nedsdag]

9. Why should he wait?

Who wrote the rules? He's a U.S. born citizen over the age of 35 so he is eligible.

Why should he sit around the Senate and wait? Because it's Madame Hillary's turn? Who died and made her boss?

Gee, making your mark in the Senate has really helped Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, hasn't it?

[Kelly Rupert]

11. I think the polls are showing why he should have waited.

He's flatlined in the mid-twenties, and Hillary is slowly pulling away. Nobody died, but right now the Democratic primary voters are making her boss. He'll have to really change his tune quick if he wants to stop that.

I think he'll make a fantastic VP, personally. Richardson will make a good Sec'y of State.

[Forkboy]

5. It's hard to show a difference that barely exists.

He can start saying anything he wants, but the record is there, and it's damn close to Hillary's. :shrug:

[Colobo]

6. Obama haters- rejoice! This thread is for you!

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Since when is looking for ways a candidate can win an expression of hate?

How strange.

[NewHampster]

10. You'd be hard pressed to find any Obama haters on DU

Just because we support others and very stongly does not mean we hate your guy. In fact most of us are mature enough to know that he or any of them may still be the ultimate candidate and therefore deserves our respect during the primary season.

Hate to say it but Ronald Reagan was right on one thing. Don't knock your own guys.

[Colobo]

13. I can list a few Obama haters. They are around here.

[ellacott]

17. You haven't read many posts in this forum.

There are quite a few Obama haters here. It's quite pitiful.

[AlCzervik]

12. wait what? I thought Clinton was Bush lite so if Obama is being Clinton lite

does that make him extra, extra Bush lite? It's all so confusing.

[Adelante]

14. Heh

It gets a little crazy :crazy:

[quinnox]

15. yup

Obama needs to be more decisive and bold, but it just is not in his character as a politician. If Obama doesn't make some headway by December, and Clinton is still up 20 points, then it will be over. Obama has around 3 months to make a move or Hillary will coast to the nomination. Meanwhile, John Edwards is trying too hard to latch on to whatever he thinks the extreme left wants to hear. Its not going to be the extreme left that will decide the nomination.

[avrdream]

16. Nice analysis.

And, FWIW, I will get massively behind Barack if he becomes our nominee. It's just that he isn't showing me anything that makes him a better Presidential candidate than Hillary.

Peace.