One often sees in the music industry an artist who bursts onto the scene with an exciting and original new sound. Once successful, however, this artist who was so daring at first, begins to play it safe, zealously guarding his success. The musician who was once so dazzling and edgy, after tasting success makes a headlong dive for the middle of the road. I use this example because, as we wait out the seemingly endless span of time before the Pennsylvania primary, my worry is that Barack Obama has become the political version of our music star. The Obama campaign that once was so inspirational has given way to a politics of safety and centrism. Worse, the authenticity which catapulted Obama to success seems to be fraying around the edges.

To be fair, Obama is currently in a strange electoral limbo: Having a sizable lead in the race for the nomination, while at the same time not able to put Hillary away, his campaign has once again gone into a kind of prevent defense. The Obama we observe these days is more concerned about making a mistake than he is about putting out an authentic message.

Trailing in Pennsylvania by 5-10 points, Obama's principled view of campaigning doesn't permit him to exploit Hillary's Tuzla fabrication, or the fact that Bill Clinton received an $800,000 payment from a Colombian trade group that supports the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, while Hillary was arguing against it. Nor has Obama spoken out about Hillary's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who was also wallowing in hypocrisy, promoting the Colombia Free Trade Agreement though his lobbying firm, while the Clinton campaign purported to oppose it.

The problem with the Obama campaign is that such a passive strategy creates little opportunity for Obama to peel away the needed votes from Hillary in Pennsylvania. The very issues that draw voters to Obama--character, integrity, and the striking disparity in competence between the way the Obama campaign has been run, and the chaotic, dysfunctional Clinton campaign--seem to be taboo subjects for Obama. Simply put, Hillary has run a terrible campaign, a fact which speaks quite poorly for her executive skills. But have you ever heard Obama raise this issue in a campaign speech? Never.

Obama's lack of killer instinct may, from a character standpoint, be a positive. He is a nice guy. But from a political standpoint, it leaves him at great pains to close the deal with the American voter. Obama is apparently willing to take the risk that he can run out the clock on Hillary, and back into the nomination. But what worries me more than the timidity in Obama's campaign style, is the manner in which he has become risk-averse on the policy front. Let's look at two of the issues where Obama has recently forsaken principle for what is politically safe:

Hamas. Perhaps the biggest policy difference between Obama and Clinton is Obama's readiness to engage in dialogue with our adversaries. After seven years of a Bush administration that preferred name-calling and antagonism toward rogue regimes over diplomatic outreach, this is a welcome change. The prospect of real dialogue with the likes of Raul Castro, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-il, is a major upgrade from the childish Bush doctrine. But when Jimmy Carter announced this week that he would go to Gaza to meet with Hamas, we suddenly found that Obama's pledge to meet with rogue regimes was not as iron-clad as we had thought. Here is Obama on dialogue with Hamas:

It is not a state and until Hamas clearly recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism and abides by, or believes that the Palestinians should abide by previous agreements ... I don't think conversations with them would be fruitful.

Huh? This is perhaps the dumbest thing that Obama has ever said. It contradicts the heart of the Obama doctrine, which maintains that dialogue with our foes is essential to the promotion of peace. Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. It has not only the backing of the majority of Palestinians, it controls all of Gaza. The idea that Obama puts forth, that somehow Hamas exists in a special universe of malevolence as compared to Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il, is preposterous, and shows just how insecure Obama feels about his Jewish support. In fact, the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, published a poll in February showing that 64% of Israelis support the idea of direct talks with Hamas. Even Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor of George Bush the elder--along with numerous international experts--has expressed his support for negotiations with Hamas. Not only is such pandering to the Jewish community beneath the dignity of the Obama campaign, I don't believe it will win him a single vote. Obama would earn far more respect from both the Jewish community and electorate at large if he simply said the following:

A bedrock principle of the Obama administration is that we will seek dialogue with international groups with whom we have profound disagreements. Just as 50 years of antagonism toward Cuba did not advance the interests of either the US or the Cuban people, so the absence of a serious diplomatic initiative in the Middle East during the Bush term has neither served the Israelis nor the Palestinians in moving toward a peaceful resolution. The Obama administration will be far more focused on diplomatic surges than military surges. We will have careful, constructive dialogue with the leaders of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

Obama's inconsistency on this issue threatens the intellectual integrity of his entire diplomatic approach.

Gays. When Obama gave that riveting speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he invoked all the opposing groups that he hoped to bring together, rich and poor, red and blue, black and white, gay and straight. Yet, one rarely hears Obama use the word "gay" anymore. His avoidance of gay issues boiled over this month, as the Philadelphia Gay News, frustrated that Obama would not give them an interview, published on its front page their interview with Hillary Clinton, and left a blank space to signify Obama's refusal to speak with them. Here is the editor of the Philadelphia Gay News, Mark Segal, talking about their decision:

We don't put ads on our front page, so we didn't lose any money by doing so. Although, no publisher wants a blank space in their paper! Or as we call it, you know, creative white space! [laughs] We wanted to make it clear from the very start that we had done our research. And I think what is shocking is that the campaign has not been able to refute our facts. It has been 1,522 days since he's spoken to local gay press.

That goes back to 2004. That's not acceptable. I am the former president of the National Gay Newspaper Guild, and last week, during a break in the meeting, former publishers and editors were sitting around the table, and half of them were Obama supporters. And we all started discussing the fact that practically every one of them has gone after Obama for an interview — and they've all gotten the runaround!

And here is an excerpt from the editorial that the Philadelphia Gays News ran:

At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we're able to view the candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them... The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews...was in 2004, before he became a U.S. senator. The other limited interview occurred after controversy erupted when his campaign added an anti-gay minister to his tour of the South. It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community.

My question here is simple: What in the world is Obama thinking? Does he really think it will cost him votes to sit down with a gay editor and reaffirm his support for civil unions, workplace anti-discrimination legislation, and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell?" Yes, one should fault Obama here on principle, but one should fault him even more on his political judgment. These issues are simply not that controversial and polarizing anymore. I can understand why John McCain refused an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News. But for Barack Obama to be scared of talking to the gay press, while at the same time Hillary is holding an Elton John fundraiser is ridiculous.

Speaking of Elton John, I liked his first album, and hated all the rest of his stuff. Obama would do better to follow the example of the Beatles: If you want to make a lasting difference, keep challenging your audience and don't pander.