Journalisten og forfatteren David Lindorff mener i en artikel på CounterPunch, at Obama er ved at tabe valget. Hvorfor?
Ifølge Lindorff, fordi han er ved at begå samme fejl som Gore i 2000 og Kerry i 2004: Han trækker mod højre for ikke at støde de mere “traditionelle”, borgerlige demokrater der bare gerne vil af med George W. Bush og al hans væsen, og udvisker dermed forskellen på McCain og ham selv – samme fejl, som den danske opposition med Socialdemokratiet i spidsen har gjort i mange år:
Hvis Kerry reelt var “Bush light”, hvis Kerry stod for fortsat krig med Irak, hvor Bush stod for fortsat krig med Irak, hvis Kerry stod for angreb på Iran, hvor Bush stod for angreb på Iran, hvis Kerry sagde “skattelettelser”, hvor Bush sagde “skattelettelser” – hvorfor skulle folk så ikke hellere ville have den ægte vare?
I Danmark gælder det samme – hvis Helle Thorning reelt er “Fogh light”, Lars Løkke Rasmussens økonomiske politik og George Bushs udenrigspolitik kombineret med så meget af Dansk Folkepartis udlændingepolitik, som hun kan få SF til at sluge, hvorfor så ikke hellere, hvis man endelig har dé tilbøjeligheder, gå efter den ægte vare?
Og Obama er ved at gå samme vej, kunne det tyde på. Som antydet på billedet, har han støttet et lovforslag, der legaliserer aflytning af telefonsamtaler uden dommerkendelse. Udenrigspolitisk trækker han tættere og tættere på McCain, givetvis i et misforstået forsøg på at virke “ansvarlig“. Hvis det ikke virkede i 2000 og heller ikke virkede i 2004, så virker det nok denne gang:
Obama, who ran his primary campaign as a liberal, staking out an anti-war position, has morphed over recent weeks into a Republican-lite candidate, calling for a hard line against Palestinian rights, threatening to attack Iran, calling for an expansion of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and backing away from genuine health care reform and other important progressive goals here at home.
One might think that after watching Democratic candidates lose the last two presidential elections by following exactly this kind of “strategy,” if it can be called that, Obama and his campaign managers would have decided to try something different, but it appears that the Democratic Party at the top is hopelessly in the grip of corporate interests that favor war, free-market nostrums and corporate welfare.
Obama got where he is—the first African-American major party nominee and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the White House—by appealing to the Democratic Party’s liberal base. Now Zogby reports that Obama’s support among liberals has plunged 12 percent. That’s liberals folks!…
How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who goes from opposing a war to saying he not only supports the idea of keeping troops in Iraq for another five years—the length of the entire WWII!—but who further says he won’t rule out attacking Iran, even if that country poses no imminent threat to the US, simply because it develops nuclear weapons—the same weapons that our putative friends, Pakistan and India, have? How can I vote for a candidate who wants to expand the military (by 65,000 troops) instead of shrinking this huge, bloodsucking parasite of an organization which is costing as much as the rest of the world spends on its armies?
How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who cannot state categorically that he will defend the Constitution by reversing all of President Bush’s abuses of power and who will not promise to prosecute the president and members of his administration for any crimes committed while in office?
Obama is not just losing liberals in droves. Many liberals, after all, will in the end return and vote for grudgingly for Obama, though they probably won’t volunteer to do any of the critical campaign work registering voters, promoting his candidacy or getting people to the polls. The worst part is that by becoming just another middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, Republican-lite clone of Kerry circa 2004 and Gore circa 2000, Obama is losing the young and also the disaffected, unaffiliated voters who were flocking to his campaign during the primaries. This group of erstwhile enthusiasts is down 12 percent, too. And it’s those people—particularly the unaffiliated voters–who are raising McCain’s numbers. The Zogby poll reports that McCain’s support among younger voters has reached 40 percent—not that much below Obama’s 52 percent.
Det fremhævede (min fremhævning) er vigtigt, fordi det også betyder, at Obama kan miste noget af det, som gjorde en virkelig forskel under primærvalgene, nemlig støtte fra aktivister og græsrødder. Under primærvalgene kunne man skaffe aktivister til at stemme noget nær samtlige dørklokker i de vigtigste områder. Hvem gider gøre noget sådant for “McCain light”?
Hermed ikke være sagt, at Obama som præsident ikke ville være at foretrække. “Obama som præsident” er en forestilling, der faktisk giver håb for fremtiden. Men han har efterhånden (og forudsigeligt) trukket i land på så mange områder, at det nærmere vil være symbolet Obama og de krav om forandring, symbolet Obama vil føre med sig, der vil gøre forskellen; politikeren Obama er som en anden Tony Blair efterhånden så svær at skelne fra en republikaner, at det næsten kunne være det samme.
