HAVING RUN AS A CLONE OF GEORGE BUSH....:

Democratic era coming? Possibly not (Dick Polman, 11/02/08, Philadelphia Inquirer)

Stan Greenberg, a prominent Democratic pollster, suggested the other day that voters are interested in Obama "because of his steadiness," and not because of his progressive agenda. That sounds about right.

Swing voters - the folks in the middle of the electorate - checked out Obama during the three presidential debates, and judged him to be of keen intellect and good temperament, at a crisis moment when both traits are required. In terms of intellect, Obama is widely viewed as the antithesis of Bush; in terms of temperament, he is widely viewed as the antithesis of John McCain.

But just because Americans want something different, that doesn't mean that the nation is trending leftward; indeed, as top Obama strategist David Axelrod remarked in Newsweek the other day, "I think right now people are in a pragmatic mood, not an ideological mood." In other words, Obama is well-positioned to win not because of his liberal profile, but in spite of it.

Democrats have won only three of the last 10 presidential elections, and the winners (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) were moderate Southerners who often warred with the liberals in their own party. Clinton won reelection in 1996 because he moved to the center and stole a number of Republican issues, notably welfare reform.

And Obama - mindful that contemporary America is actually slightly right of center - has been talking up tax cuts, invoking God and traditional values, and voicing his determination to kill terrorists. Meanwhile, he sidesteps the traditional liberal issues. He tries not to utter the phrases gun control or gay marriage. He defends abortion rights when asked to do so, but stresses his desire to reduce the number of abortions. He defends capital punishment. And he steers clear of the liberal camp's concerns about post-9/11 government surveillance.

Obama's caution suggests that he is attuned to the dangers of overreaching, that he and Axelrod are keen not to mistake a solid win for a sweeping ideological agenda. Victory would present Obama with an opportunity, not a mandate. Swing voters would be entrusting him to govern competently, using good ideas from both sides of the aisle. No longer would he be judged favorably in contrast to McCain or Bush; that's the easy part. Within a year or two, Obama (and the Democratic Congress) would be judged solely on the size of the gap between promise and performance.

...what are the chances that congressional Democrats and activists let him govern that way? He has a mandate for tax cuts and nothing else, which would make for a successful presidency, but a deranged base.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2008 7:57 AM