Four years ago, the Democrats had a pretty good presidential candidate. Not a great one, but a pretty good one. John Kerry had a long record of mostly exemplary service in the Senate; he was a war hero. As the campaign unfolded, though, his major qualification for the White House seemed to boil down to one thing: he wasn't George W. Bush.
It wasn't enough. Bush kept his job.
More below.
Now, obviously, 2008 is not 2004. John McCain does not have an incumbent's advantages, even as the Dems continue to push the "McCain = Bush III" meme. And Barack Obama is a better candidate than Kerry was; Obama is a better, more inspirational speaker than Kerry ever was, he has a better organization behind him, and the playing field is tilted more heavily in his direction in terms of party membership and such.
But if 2004 demonstrated anything, it's that a candidate must have a positive message of their own to present to the American people. Simply being "not the other guy" isn't enough to put you in the White House, no matter how unpopular the other guy is.
During the primaries Obama presented that positive message. He was going to change politics in Washington, and get us out of the divisive, Rovian pit we'd fallen into. He wasn't just talking about "hope" and "change" in vague terms; Obama was presenting a new path for us to follow, and thousands jumped on board to walk that path with him.
Since clinching the nomination? Not so much.
Sure, Obama's FISA stand (yes, I can hear the groans from here... this isn't a FISA diary, I promise) represented an example of "bipartisanship". It did not represent a new path though. Simply giving way before Bush's divine fiat is the path we've been on for seven-plus years, and the result has been a stain we may never wash off our reputation as a nation. In fact, almost all of Obama's statements and actions since clinching the nom seem designed to reassure the entrenched power interests.
His decision to shun public financing, for instance, would be more meaningful as a vehicle for change if he were actually doing something to appeal to small donors, rather than chasing after the deeper pockets behind the Clinton machine.
Now, I appreciate that the campaign hasn't yet begun in earnest. Ad buys are just beginning to ramp up, and Obama's main efforts so far in that area have gone towards "introducing" himself to America.
But at the same time, he wasn't exactly well known to rank and file Democrats when he launched his primary campaign either. Letting America get to know him doesn't preclude also letting America know where he wants to take them, and so far that kind of message has been conspicuous by its absence, especially given how well he integrated such a message into his primary campaign.
I suspect this is the one of the main reasons why the national polls are lagging behind the results of the state-by-state breakdowns. America is waiting to see exactly what his pitch is before making a commitment.
But if his pitch ends up being nothing more than "I'm better than John McCain", this election is going to be a lot closer than it needs to be.
