Abe Greenwald has a great post up over at Commentary in which he explains that one of the major mistakes the Democrats have made in recent years is that they have presented themselves as “not George W. Bush.” Not “Democratic,” but “not Bush.” That’s also why, Abe explains, John Kerry lost back in 2004. He didn’t convince Americans that he had solid plans for America; he just told them that Bush sucked and that he wasn’t Bush.

Amazingly, the failure wrought by Kerry’s method of campaign-framing didn’t deter Democrats. In the 2006 congressional races, Democrats once again failed to convey a chosen ideological path. There was no clear indication of an affinity for Clintonian centrism or for progressivism. Democratic Congressional hopefuls ran simply as the GOP alternative. They talked up small-ticket items like a raise in minimum wage, and offered a watery mash-up of ideologies in the form of the “first hundred hours” contract. This time it worked. 2005 saw the dashed hopes of the “Arab Spring.” By 2006, anti-Iraq and anti-Bush sentiment was strong enough to deliver a Democratic thumpin’ to Capitol Hill Republicans. The Democratic Party Leader may have been Howard Dean, but the pitch—to the extent there was one—was “blue dog” compromise. In short, the Democrats remained ideologically rudderless.

Having got Congress back without recourse to an ideological framework, Democrats saw no reason not to continue in this mode. Which brings us to 2008. Without ever having resolved the centrism-progressivism question, the Clinton-Obama race was to be determined by an issue outside of political ideology—namely, identity. It has become the white woman against the black man: as everyone repeatedly points out, their policy differences are incremental. Moreover, these policies are surprisingly far to the Left. This is because the Democrats, since 2004, have not figured out how to sell themselves to the general electorate. They are now playing endlessly to their own. In the identity battle–and in the overall warfare of this Democratic primary–Obama has all but won. While his impending victory has nothing to do with political ideology, the candidate himself comes equipped with a strong adherence to far-Left principles. This is how the Democrats have ended up with the most liberal potential presidential nominee since World War II.

The problem with this scenario is that modern Democratic presidents have come to office as centrists.

I agree with virtually everything Abe says in his post; the Democrats have made a big mistake by relying on anti-Republican sentiments to win elections. Not only that, if they do win elections, they still have a problem. They’ll try to push through liberal policies, but there may not be popular support for such policies, which means that Republicans will feel very confident in preventing Democrats from pushing anything through.

Having said that, one could say that Obama does try to present himself as something, not just non-Republican. The problem is, he’s so vague about it that the something he represents could be everything… and that which means everything means, in essence, nothing.