Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama and Damage to the Brand   [Byron York]

I just got off the phone with a well-connected Democrat, trying to get a better read on this Democrats-miffed-with-Obama stuff.  It's real, he said, and more serious than the mostly process concerns outlined in the Politico story.  Yes, party leaders are irritated at the Obama campaign's go-it-alone style.  "Another Democrat said that they want to do this without help from anyone inside the Beltway," my source says, "because they want to arrive in town and not owe anyone anything.  Which is a big gamble, because if it doesn't work, everyone is going to blame the hell out of them."  But the bigger problem is the after-effect of Obama's extensive "refinements" in policy. "What they thought they would do is improve their position on issues by moving Obama to the center," the source says.  "And what they failed to account for is that in improving their position politically, they underestimated the damage to the brand that was going to be inflicted by this."

As evidence, the Democrat cites the recent Newsweek poll, which asked, "Some people say that since Barack Obama became the presumed Democratic nominee for president, he has changed his position on key policy issues to try to gain political advantage.  Do you agree or disagree?"  Fifty-three percent of the registered voters polled agreed, while 32 percent disagreed and 15 percent didn't know.  "If McCain can turn him into a politician, Obama has lost his advantage," the Democrat says.

The great potential for damage is on Iraq, of course; if Obama's supporters believed he has changed his position on Iraq, that would be devastating.  With today's speech and his recent clarifications of policy, the Democrat believes that Obama has probably stopped the damage on that score, although his base is skeptical in a way it wasn't before.  "I think this notion that the goal hasn't changed, but of course we are going to listen to the generals on the ground — that's a pretty safe position for him," the Democrat says.  But other flip-flops, like FISA, this Democrat says, could hurt him.

But isn't concern about FISA pretty much inside baseball, limited to the hard-core base, people who might complain about Obama but always support him?  Yes, the Democrat says, but, "His base cares about it a lot, and he made a big deal in the primaries about how he would filibuster.  It was a matter of moral principle."  And it's not just principle involved.  It's money.  What was the source of Obama's miraculous fundraising prowess? It was people who cared a lot about things like FISA.  "Where FISA and Iraq hurt him is with small donors on the Internet," the source says.  "If the brand is really damaged, then the decision to opt out [of the campaign finance system] becomes a lot riskier, because the $100 donor is the donor who pays a lot of attention to that stuff.  It's the FISA-head who gave him 100 bucks."

That, of course, connects to the uneasiness among Democrats with Obama's fundraising in June.  It's July 15, and he still hasn't announced how much he raised last month.  Maybe it will turn out to be huge, and he's been coy about it.  But if it is underwhelming, and perhaps even continues Obama's recent downward trend, there will be a lot of questions among Democrats who wonder whether Obama's financial advantage is as much of a sure-thing as they thought.

My Democratic source doesn't believe Obama has done himself any permanent damage, at least not yet.  "He needs to regain his equilibrium, and I think he will," the source says.  But watch the issue of damage to the brand.  If there's more, Obama's great advantage in this campaign, politically and financially, could be greatly diminished.

07/15 07:26 PMShare