Will Obama’s Shifting Positions and Evolving Promises Kill His Race?

It’s funny, but now that Obama’s in the thick of campaigning as the presumptive Democratic nominee his theme of change has started to buckle, slightly, under the usual weight of political ambitions. His support of legislation to protect telecommunication companies involved in the Bush administration wiretapping program (after he vowed, during the primaries, to fight such initiatives). His slight but surprising reversal on a quick withdrawal from Iraq. His shafting of Wesley Clark for his comments on John McCain (said in the defense of Obama, no doubt). The New York Times piece reporting how Obama’s campaign snubs his Islamic supporters….All in the name of raising Obama’s patriotic quotient, but putting his supporters in the awkward position of questioning their own support

Granted, anyone paying attention to the race understands that Obama’s game has begun to morph because, well, he is in the game now, and is no longer battling for just Democrats. But his ever-expanding list of promises and off-putting reversals to win Republicans and undecided voters brings to mind (and some validity to) Adolph Reed’s anti-Obama essay in the May issue of The Progressive. Potentially, a prophetic stroke. Overall, he tags the presidential hopeful a “vacuous opportunist,” saying Obama, like any politician, will say anything to anybody to get elected and will strategically use his blackness to out-Clinton Bill Clinton’s run for the White House. (“He actually goes beyond Clinton,” Reed writes, “and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made famous.”)

Only, unlike Bill, Reed doesn’t see a win for Obama against McCain. And, ultimately, it’s because Obama’s style of being “all things to all people” (a jab at his multi-racial background, Hmmm) threatens to expose his campaign’s theme of change as a sham. To illustrate his point, Reed uses this vivid metaphor:

It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide from their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told people.”

Mind you, to anyone desperate for change or hope in mainstream politics —like Edwidge Danticat in her opposing essay in support of Barack—Reed can be a buzzkill, a sobering contrarian ripping the façade off seemingly progressive moments. (Hell, at the height Clinton years—when we all loved the president—he called Bill out for his racist, unprogressive policies, and, after leaving office, Viola! Bill proved himself racist and unprogressive.) But in light of the deep center Obama’s seems to be headed in— changing positions here and ditching an outspoken supporter there—Reed’s metaphor on the cause of Barack’s downfall shouldn’t be taken lightly, especially by the Obama camp.

One thing the candidate has on his side, as we all know, is the country’s disapproval of where the country, its economy, and its military is headed. And not many people are pleased with the Bush administration or anyone who supports its policies. But, while Barack looks like the lesser of two evils (to beat a dead election phrase deeper into the ground), what happens when he starts looking not-too-different from his opponent? Mind you, a lot of shifting and backsliding and disavowing on Barack’s part can happen in four months. Then there won’t be much for voters from the other side to be swayed by. Then where will Barack and everyone’s hope for progress and change be? Barack’s strategy to play the flip-flop game with McCain could be costly, especially when Republicans don’t care about their guy changing positions when it suits them.

While, ultimately, I don’t think Barack’s repositioning will hurt him, entirely, he definitely stands to, like my man Jeff over at Zentronix implies, hurt—even kill—the theme of “change” and “progress” and “hope” so closely associated with his run.