Andrew Sullivan: “What the Obama campaign has to do is relatively simple: stop being defensive about their record”

Honestly, I couldn’t care less about all the names I’ve been called since writing this. Making this about me just proved how un-focused we are. Luckily, I’m pretty sure that if anyone from the campaign read that letter, they’ll treat its merits and know that it came from a very anxious and loyal heart. Even so, it’s nice to see that I’m not alone. Here’s Sully:

What the Obama campaign has to do is relatively simple: stop being defensive about their record, connect the politics of the past two years to the GOP’s fierce resistance to change and then ask for help in completing it. I made a brief case along these lines last Friday. Tomasky piths it up:


The story, in a nutshell, is this: we inherited a total disaster,  things are getting better, and Romney will bring us back to disaster.


So far, the Obama campaign has seemed to me overly negative and tactical, as opposed to positive and strategic. I’m not saying the Bain ads should be pulled; they’re legit and they appear to be working. I’m not saying that Romney’s extreme wealth and privilege should not be highlighted. But I am saying that Obama’s core strength must stay what it was last time: sane, centrist, profound reform. He can say in his first two years, he made a massive downpayment but has been stymied ever since. This election is about empowering him to finish what he began. And to have voted for him in 2008 and not vote for him now makes no sense at all.

We all knew there would be brutal resistance to real change. So are we really going to bail when resistance makes its strongest counter-attack? Or will we push the president to keep his promises while mobilizing to ensure he can recapitalize in this election and finish the job? I know where I am on this. Do you?