Can he change his spots?

I've written and discussed this on several occasions but I think Jonah Goldberg makes the most well-founded prediction about Obama's prospects for 'triangulating' his way into the electorate's good graces.

Many of the foreseeable opportunities for Obama to triangulate reside outside of his control. For instance, as Ramesh noted in the magazine, Clinton’s rehabilitation began with the Oklahoma City bombing. He gave a good speech and then cynically used the tragedy to demonize the GOP and conservative talk radio. Obama certainly can’t plan on something like that and, heaven forbid, should such a tragedy transpire, milking it for political advantage comes with profound risks for Obama.

Moreover, the big kahuna of Clinton’s race to the center was his signing of welfare reform. I’m open to correction, but it seems to me the only major legislation coming down the pike of similar stature and ideological resonance would be the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Will Obama really sign such a thing? I doubt it.

Also, Obama is a much worse salesman than Bill Clinton. There’s still a debate about whether Obama is even a good salesman at all. But if the health-care debate (never mind Copehagen, Seoul, etc.) demonstrated anything, it is that Obama is not nearly the closer his fans thought he was. For a year, the White House said Obama was one more speech away from sealing the deal, and after every speech Obamacare seemed a bit less desirable.

Last, a related point. Forget whether Obama is too ideologically rigid to move to the center. I think he’s too arrogant to admit he was wrong about anything significant. That constrains his options for how to triangulate. He’ll point fingers at Pelosi and the congressional Dems (and since he outsourced his domestic policy to them, he’s got ample ammo), but he won’t admit blame save for weaselly stuff like “I underestimated how evil the Republicans are.” That’s a big liability when you’re trying to convince voters you’ve learned the right lessons from the midterms.

I also agree with Goldberg's assessment about the unlikelihood of a primary challenge, but not for the same reasons he expresses.

The white left will not take responsibility for destroying the reelection chances of the first black president.

The left is far less susceptible to sensitivity about racism than any conservative politician. Its like the homeless--they disappear as an issue when they are no longer useful, and so would issues of race if the party thought replacing Obama as its nominee would improve the party's fortunes. The real problem here is that its not a saleable proposition to blame Obama for the party's problems. Obama hasn't been driving a personal agenda, he's been driving the Progressive consensus, and the polls show it. Obama remains personally popular, while the party's policies are political losers from A to Z. There simply is no viable candidate for the nomination better than the sitting President.

Broadly-speaking, Goldberg is entirely correct--Obama really has no real tools to recast him image without alienating his base beyond their tolerance. Its been interesting to talk to some of my liberal-progressive friends and hear a tacit resignation to Obama being a one term President. That in fact is not a good sign for conservatives who have benefited considerably from the Democrat's mass delusion or recent months.

The ball is in the Republican's court, and considering that we lost at least two races that were gimmes because we picked the wrong candidate, the main threat to Republican victory in 2012 is making Sarah Palin the nominee. Questions about whether she is qualified or not are immaterial to the larger issue--if her polls are as bad as they are now, with Obama weak and a candidacy entirely theoretical, then its a pretty safe bet they won't get much better in 2012.