OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a progressive!!!!!

The new meme being pushed by a lot of political commentators and anti-Obama posters is that he is showing his true centrist colors. Obama has 'lurched' to the center. The only trouble with it is that it's not really true. He's never been the flaming, far left liberal that many have tried to paint him.

In the last few days, there have been a bunch of diaries on this site and others either ranting about his 'lurch to the center' or serving as 'I told you fools he was no progressive' rants.

There are four issues that are supposedly acts of betrayal by Obama - FISA (the big one), gun control, the death penalty, and public financing for his campaign. While there is some small nugget of truth in a couple of these, they are mostly twisted to show him in the worst light possible. No big surprise there given who's doing most of the complaining about these issues.

Two of these aren't even changes of position by Obama. He's said the same things about the death penalty and gun control recently that he's said before. Only someone who has been paying no attention to his stances on the issues would think he's changed his positions on these two issues.

The same holds true for FISA, even though many on the left and right want to paint that as a change of position. He has never said he was against the FISA bill as a piece of legislation. He was against a 'bad' FISA bill that contained telco immunity. Surprise, surprise, he's still against immunity.

I can hear the comeback now. "But, but, but... (deep breath) he said he'd filibuster it". I've got news for you, that's not possible. 80 Senators voted for cloture. He can't filibuster even if you beat him over the head with the Bill of Rights from now until the end of the year. What do you want? Do you think he should suddenly seize control of the country and singlehandedly dictate the details of FISA?

The one issue where there is some small nugget of truth in the complaints is on public financing. Obama did say he would try to work with his opponent to find a way to have a clean, publicly financed campaign. Unfortunately for his critics, his current stance isn't as offensive as they would have you believe.

His acceptance of public financing was always contingent on an agreement to limit the effect of outside groups on the campaign. He convinced moveon.org to agree to not running a 527 against McCain. The response from McCain? "I can't control them". Obama's response was that if McCain had no influence with his supporters then he, Obama, would not go into the campaign with one hand tied behind his back.

There is something a lot of critics are ignoring. Obama has changed the face of campaign financing. He has minimized the impact of lobbyists on his campaign and expanded the participation of ordinary citizens to an astonishing level. No campaign has ever been run like this before. This is change you can bank.

Some time ago, the meme going around was that Obama was a flaming liberal who was lying about trying to bring people together around common interests. One refrain went, "He's the most liberal Senator! He'll turn the country into a Euro-style socialist hell".  Another was that he would not try to work with all sides to find solutions, because he was really a far-left radical. There were even accusations on right-wing sites of being a Marxist. Now, the same people who were pushing that meme are pushing the new one.

Obama was never a far-left liberal anymore than he is a right-of-center moderate. What he is, is a moderate progressive. That's what he's always been. Anyone who has researched his voting record and his stances on the issue could have told you this. His writings, which are available for anyone to study, have made this abundantly clear. His most common operating method is to seek consensus. You can't reach consensus if you are a rigid ideologue.  

The biggest problem with this whole right v. left, progressive v. conservative controversy is that no one really agrees on the position of the center. Ideology isn't a fixed scale. It is more like a sliding scale. Where most people think the center is on that scale is where they are standing and even if they are on the far right or far left, they think everyone else should be there with them.

There was a diary on this site a few days ago asking people what progressive meant to them. There was any number of answers. There are probably as many answers as there are progressives. A lot of people that call themselves progressives aren't even progressives. They are liberals with the mistaken belief that progressive and liberal are interchangeable terms. They aren't.

The point I'm trying to make is that people seem to expect Obama to please them every moment of every day. He's never supposed to take a stance on an issue that conflicts with theirs. Well, that's just plain impossible. There is so much difference of opinion on the issues even within the Democratic party that it would be impossible to get everyone to agree on any issue.

To paraphrase a great American (yes, another Republican) It is true that you may please all of the people some of the time; you can even please some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Note added later: I want to personally thank srickki for the numerous troll comments he's posted in this diary. He thought he was being destructive, but he's actually been quite helpful. His posts have upped the comment count by quite a bit. I suspect that staying on the rec list is a combination of recs, time, and comments. Thank you, srickki. Keep up the good work. For those who have zero rated comments hidden, srickki is a troll that copied another user's sig line and cloned their username. Sricki is a valued contributer to this site. Srickki is an almost worthless troll, except for the help he's given me keeping this diary visible.

Display:


Thanks for the great diary. (1.90 / 10)

Gun control and the death penalty are wedge issues to divide liberal Democrats from centrist Democrats and Independents.

On forgoing public funding:  I haven't seen a single Democrat or Obama supporter dissapointed that he'll raise more money than McCain.  The only ones throwing a fit are PUMAs, Republicans and some media folks.

FISA: The situation sucks and its not a good issue for Democrats. The only people are harping on it here, though, are the anti-Obama and anti-Democrat folks.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:29:06 AM EST

ah. (2.00 / 3)

if i never hear the word folks again after the primary, it wouldn't be soon enough... ;)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ah. (2.00 / 1)

Get used to it. Obama uses folks all the time. Not as much as McCain uses "my friends", but still quite a bit.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

prepare to be quote mined... (2.00 / 1)


Obama uses folks all the time.

Clearly a republican troll...


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"My friends" (2.00 / 1)

John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his colleagues.

But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ." it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: while the plural "my friends" was usually a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator, calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.

Grassley said recently that "it was a very long period of time" before he and McCain spoke to each other again, though he declined, through a spokesman, to discuss the specifics of the incident.

There's got to be a message in there somewhere.  McCain says "My friends" at least once every speech.  Is he secretly threatening violence against the American people every time he addresses them?


by semiquaver on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "My friends" (2.00 / 2)

It's a dozen verbal terrorist fist jabs in every speech.  Someone get a Bil O'Reilly body language expert on the case.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ah. (2.00 / 1)

CG,

I don't know what you're talking ABOOT, EH.

/canadian

And you folks up there enunciate too much, too.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This line is BS! (2.00 / 2)

"FISA: The situation sucks and its not a good issue for Democrats. The only people are harping on it here, though, are the anti-Obama and anti-Democrat folks."

I am NEITHER of the things you describe! You are a class A fool if you think the "new and improved" FISA does not matter!

Wake Up Sheeple!


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This line is BS! (2.00 / 2)

I'll agree there are legitimate complaints about this issue, but those complaints shouldn't be focused solely on Obama. The only trouble I have about it is that all of the anger seems focused on Obama for a House bill. If people are really outraged about the fisa bill and not just using it to bludgeon Obama with then they should be screaming at all of the Dems in the House who voted for it and all of the Senators who voted Aye on cloture. If you single out Obama then it looks like your only intent is to hurt him instead of really caring about the issue.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (2.00 / 2)

BUT he is NOW the head of the party. He is NOW the big dog! What he says and does carries a LOT of weight!

This is why some people are beating on Obama for his lack of ... (fill in the blank)

Adams and Dicks from my area voted yes and Murray I believe voted wrong in the Senate also. I will continue to beat on them!


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not entirely... (2.00 / 1)

He has limited political capital even as the nominee... and I think even had he come out with all guns on this bill he couldn't have stopped it. There is a conservative majority in the Senate no matter the party affiliations. Hopefully, come Nov, that will change.


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:51:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that said... (2.00 / 1)

I wasn't happy with this... I would have preferred some kind of stronger statement. I wasn't happy with the death penalty comments... but I've always known Obama differed on the matter.

Just for the record.


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way (2.00 / 1)

if you are not "harping" on FISA, then I tend to think you like it and are a REPUG.

Just sayin....


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If anyone thought he was "hard left" (2.00 / 3)

they weren't paying attention. Only the right tried to paint him as super-liberal. His record and his stance on issues have always contradicted those claims.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:34:27 AM EST

Re: If anyone thought he was "hard left" (2.00 / 1)

Ah, but it's not the right that's freaking out about this 'lurch to the center'. If anyone is upset about that then it must mean they thought he was, or was portraying himself as, a strong liberal or quite a bit left-of-center progressive.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If anyone thought he was "hard left" (2.00 / 1)

Or another explanation... they weren't paying attention. He even bocked at claims he was 'hard left' in the debates.

Just to name a few... he has always supported capital punishment. He's for "civilian unions", not gay marriage. He wants to increase the size of the Army and Marines. He took THE most aggressive stance on key terrorists hiding out in Pakistan. Even John McCain attacked him for that.

That's why I always laughed at the right trying to paint him as "super liberal."  


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pakistan... (none / 0)

...wasn't really a left-right thing. It was a narrative opportunity, with Clinton trying to play up her "experience" and play down Obama as "inexperienced" as she had done with the Sadat mission to Israel question. McCain is using the same tactics, because it's an easy narrative to adopt. Obama's foreign policy credentials are robust but fairly subtle for media play... arms proliferation in the former U.S.S.R. isn't all that sexy a topic when contrasted with a military background like McCain's.

It was telling that, in the Soldier Field debate, Biden basically pointed out that what Obama had suggested be the correct manner of dealing with Pakistan was already more or less consistent with U.S. policy. The notion that he was out of line was always absurd... and the notion that he was being excessively hawkish always came from cherry-picking his quite detailed foreign policy speech.

...and then a month later Clinton was happy to criticize Musharraf as well.


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan... (2.00 / 1)

I will say I don't agree that Obama took that position for pragmatic reasons. He was the lone ranger in that regard and his position makes sense (as you stated). He took shots for that from the left and from the right.

I won't say that it's consistent with current US policy, because al-Qaeda and the Taliban. STILL is able to safely use Pakistan to regroup, reorganize and rearm. It was only recently that I learned about a UAV attack on a key target, ironically, only (after) Obama had made those remarks.

Perhaps it has been done before? I don't know. But what we're doing is clearly not enough.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:44:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed... (none / 0)

I was a bit too rigidly analytical there. I agreed with Obama's position and I don't believe he expected it to turn into quite the narrative bait it became.


I won't say that it's consistent with current US policy, because al-Qaeda and the Taliban. STILL is able to safely use Pakistan to regroup, reorganize and rearm. It was only recently that I learned about a UAV attack on a key target, ironically, only (after) Obama had made those remarks.

Perhaps it has been done before?

We had the incident just last week now in which we struck across the border unfortunately leading to the deaths of Pakistani military in response to a cross-border attack. That incident got quiet surprisingly fast... the point isn't that we're ignoring the border but rather that there is some upper-level leeway for action at our discretion. Obama took issue with a particular instance where that discretion had not been used, as I recall.


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (2.00 / 3)

Obama was never a far-left liberal anymore than he is a right-of-center moderate. What he is, is a moderate progressive. That's what he's always been. Anyone who has researched his voting record and his stances on the issue could have told you this. His writings, which are available for anyone to study, have made this abundantly clear. His most common operating method is to seek consensus. You can't reach consensus if you are a rigid ideologue.

This has always been what I've liked about him.  He and Clinton are both moderate by temperament, and favor consensus over ram-down-the-throat power plays.  He'll disappoint me again, as he has already, but you can't ever get everything you want.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:35:21 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (2.00 / 3)

But the point is, what happens if consensus cannot be reached, or isn't worth reaching?  For some issues, you gotta be willing to stay and fight rather than even bother looking for the middle ground, because there is no middle ground to be found.  I think a lot of the progressive blogosphere feel like FISA is such an issue, and are waiting for Obama to act as such.  

Clearly the specific are going to be different for each person (as the diarist rightly points out), but there has to be some issue(s) for which "rigid ideology" is a virtue and not a vice.


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I agree, I wish he'd stepped up.  My point is that I acknowledge he's not always gonna do it when I want him to.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we know by past history... (2.00 / 2)

Obama took a stand on Von Spakovsky, which may suggest that voting rights is an area in which he wouldn't be prone to compromise... We know from his Illinois record and his time in the senate he has some persistence regarding ethics reform... or for that matter the interrogation reforms regarding the death penalty.

Obama's m.o. is less shooting for the moon and more selecting a somewhat left-of-center or not-strictly-partisan position and work towards it incrementally by whatever consensus means possible. It's not really so dramatic as taking a stand on a particular bill.


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:02:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I'm afraid we're seeing exactly the reason why John Edwards was so hesitant support Obama--his unwillingness to fight for an issue. Regardless of what the diarist implies, many of the most rabid Obama supporters did see him as a true progressive and argued that he was the most progressive of the Democratic candidates (not counting Kucinich). What I'm seeing now is exactly what I expected, but I don't think it's what the majority of his supporters expected. "Pragmatist" is just a nicer way of saying opportunist as far as I'm concerned. I think FISA, death penalty, gun control, and campaign finance reform are issues that are central to what it means to be a progressive. To cave on or dismiss these makes me wonder just what progressive issues he will be willing to take a stand for.


by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You've missed the point. (none / 0)

Ironically, it is precisely your kind of mentality that this diary objects to.

You claim by virtue of personal opinion, his "unwillingness to fight" and that his actions are tantamount to "caving". You claim by virtue of personal opinion that it is your favorite issues that defines "progressive", then castigate him for opposing those. You conveniently ignore that he's not running for presidency of the progressive party, but of the United States.

You gloat about how you saw this coming. But what has completely escaped you is that it is your antipathy that is the problem. Your despise for him that will never cease to seek to validation for your suspicions. A self-fulfilling desire to prove that he is every bit as unworthy as your opinions have always held. Wallow in this if you must, but fully expect to be called on it.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've missed the point. (none / 0)

Wow. I missed this response to my comment yesterday. But what a total load of crap. You've said a mouthful here without really saying anything. Certainly I claim by virtue of opinion, as do all of us, but that opinion was informed by actions. Progressive values are defined by the progressive community, not by me, and those values for most progressives would include those I've listed. And so it's my antipathy that is the problem? What the hell does that mean? Do you even know? I have every intention of voting for him, so I don't see the problem you're imagining. My "despise for him" doesn't exist, though I've come to despise some of his more vocal, thoughtless supporters. Do I believe him unworthy? Again, no. Pure fantasy on your part. So you've called me on what exactly?


by bouvougan on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:49:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what the hell it means. (none / 0)

It means that your history of accusing Obama of opportunism and expedience, notwithstanding the hand-wringing claims of "support" above, betrays your marked antipathy for him - whether you recognize it or not. One that has you seeking issues to disparage him for, then unsurprisingly finding validation for your suspicions.

Here's your mouthful, earlier:


What I'm seeing now is exactly what I expected, but I don't think it's what the majority of his supporters expected. "Pragmatist" is just a nicer way of saying opportunist as far as I'm concerned.

I think FISA, death penalty, gun control, and campaign finance reform are issues that are central to what it means to be a progressive. To cave on or dismiss these makes me wonder just what progressive issues he will be willing to take a stand for.

Your thinly veiled concern trolling above isn't what most would regard as support. Regardless, the point you're being called on is this: Your claimed disappointment with what you perceive of as his "caving in" was self-fulfilling. Contrary to your claim, the "majority of his supporters" never expected him to be championing far left causes during the general election campaign. He has 2 full terms for that.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton (bill) had enough influence (none / 0)

that the power brokers didn't believe what shpiel you're running.

Can you point to some compromises, some 'it's over and let it die' stuff that Hillary has done? (honestly interested, not trying to reignite primary fever)


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (none / 0)

How terribly realistic of you.


by LakersFan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (none / 0)

Thank you.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

This is the sense I get of Obama's deliberations:

"Well, I'm kinda busy campaigning right now. You think it'll get enough votes to pass? To end a filibuster? Oh. Okay, cool, because I really don't have time for this right now."


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:30:43 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

Hey, wow! Did you pick up that conversation on one of your fillings or was it through the antennas on your tinfoil hat?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

Hey, wow! Don't be an ass to people! It won't win you any friends or get people to read your diaries!
Wow! Wow wow wow!!
by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

Come'on, it was funny. At least it seemed like it at the time. It's late here. I should have been asleep 2 hours ago. The only reason I'm still up is that I forgot to turn the air conditioning down until a little while ago. Now I'm waiting for it to cool down enough to sleep. It still seems like a funny response. At least at funny as your comment about Obama's thought process on this.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Srickki, stop spamming the diary. (2.00 / 5)

Everyone but you can see all of your comments -- they're being hidden. No need to post them 100 times.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:29:05 AM EST

if ever there were an argument... (2.00 / 7)

for rating systems tied to autoban...


by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

+ a million (2.00 / 5)

seriously.  


by semiquaver on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 5)

If rankles/srickki/switching sides/lemon714/god knows whatever other monikers he's using doesn't get banned for this blatant spamming, I don't know what the hell someone has to do to actually get banned.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:09:01 AM EST

Ideology isn't a fixed scale: (1.75 / 4)

excellent point. great diary. i think a rec is in order.


[apparently theres alot of cats with cheese on their faces today? or was it raining cheese slices earlier? hmmm -impersonator trolls are the best.]
by alyssa chaos on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:07:50 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! (none / 0)

Obama didn't HAVE to say he'd support a filibuster.  He did it for political gain in the primaries.  Now, it's down the memory hole--for political gain, as he sees it.

I can't imagine any issue on which short-term expediency won't be Obama's watchword.  It's the price we'll be paying for electing a post-partisan uniter.  He needs to keep that brand viable.  

Obama isn't worried about the left. He's more worried about Joe Klein and his ilk.  Fortunately for Barack, the media hacks seem to have concluded that flip-flopping is now statesmanship.  Go figure.


by Upstate Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:12:41 AM EST

What you forgot to mention (none / 0)

is that he offered same arguments for voting against Hillary! But I guess it is water under the bridge and he is a typical politician.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:43:24 AM EST

Is this snark, or just irony? (2.00 / 2)

because you see, you miss the point almost perfectly.

Yes, you are correct, Obama was never truly progressive. However, those who listened to his speeches, rather than the words in those speeches, those who listened to meaningless bumper sticker words like "Change" and "Yes We Can," never understood that. They railed about Clinton and the DLC, and talked about how they needed a "REAL" Democrat, not a "triangulator."  Many of us warned you about Obama (who I will support and vote for, but never like), telling you that he really meant it when he said Republicans were the party of ideas, and Reagan was transformative. You didn't believe us, finding absurd or miraculous ways to interpret what he said to mean something different.

So now, today, you find out that we were right the whole time, and yet you still find some way to blame us for your disappointment and inability to listen.

Truly, is this snark, or just irony?


by dhonig on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:36:41 AM EST

Re: Is this snark, or just irony? (none / 0)

Reagan was transformative. I've mentioned more than once that he started us down the long miserable road that led us to the disaster that is Bush. There's no question at all about whether Reagan was transformative or not.

And, the Repukes were the party of ideas. Lousy ideas, but ideas none the less. Contract with America. Low taxes, small government, etc... They betrayed their ideas, many of which were never really that good anyway. It's time we became the party of ideas for the best road forward for America. That's exactly what Obama has been saying and what he meant about Reagan and the party of ideas.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center (2.00 / 1)

Look I have no problem with his so called lurch to the center, it was inevitable, sensible in most cases, and probably where he was anyway. What annoys a lot of Hillary supporters like me is that that's not the way his supporters were telling it two months ago when all these characteristics represented extreme evil in the form of Hillary Clinton. It's like all the bogus charges of racism which a lot of these same people whipped up. No Obama's not the problem here it's the antics and hypocrisy of his supporters.    


by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:12:12 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center (2.00 / 1)

Some of his supporters were telling you that two months ago. He wasn't telling you that. Do you listen to the supporters or do you listen to the candidates? Should I listen to Larry Johnson to find out where Hillary stands on the issues?

My problem with the DLC has never been that they are too centrist. Well, mostly not that. It was that they were too corporatist and had bought into the red state v. blue state strategy promoted by the right.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center (2.00 / 1)

we need to lets this go, or acknowledge that it was a two way street. Neither "side" was immune to hyperbolic claims of -"isms". Yeah some Obama supporters are over the top... guess what? Some Clinton supporters are as well. In fact, currently one can make the argument that most of the vitriol is coming from Clinton supporters (not all, but most).

Once you get off the internet, and people who are plugged into the debate through the internet, things are a bit more sane.


by notedgeways on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

all these characteristics represented extreme evil in the form of Hillary Clinton

True.


I'm for a timeline on Iraq, public funding of elections, women's reproductive rights, gun restrictions and universal suffrage. So why should I vote for Obama?
by William Cooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:30:39 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

I do agree with you generally. You can't expect to always agree. The FISA bill was painful for me, but..its the way its always going to be. I have never fully agreed with a candidate for president.

 The other side of this is I don't like others to justify all actions so that Obama can still be seen as flawless.   I see that Keith Olbermann has posted at KOS to say that even though it seems like Obama is voting for immunity, actually the law is so poorly written it only prohibits civil suits and that as president he can still prosecute; that the yes vote is meaningless since the bill was passing anyway.  It seems like a very convoluted argument to me..yes really means no if done by our candidate.  I am a progressive who continues to want to push for the issues i believe in. I don't expect to always agree with the Democratic candidate and I can still strongly support him. But that doesn't mean I do backflips to justify all actions.


by KateG on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:30:14 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

His stance does not bother me. Everyone knows that you run left in the primary and back in the center for the general. This is called politics. What does bother me is that all of his supporters claim that he is above such thing as "politics" and heralded a new era of change. The Obama campaign (mainly his surrogates- the elected ones and those in the media)and his online supporters have painted hillary as a sort of 'bush-lite' and a continuation of the current administration. To them, DLC = GOP. I never bought into the whole "change" theme. It was and is disingenuous.

And on FISA, yes 80 senators voted for cloture. The last I heard we still had the Senate. You're telling me that as head (since he is now the presumptive nominee) of the party he could not convince 21 senators (most of them endorsed him if memory served me right) not to vote for cloture?! If anyone could have rallied the party to block it, it was he. He wasn't even there, yet it amounted to a 'present' vote. This is NOT leadership. It's politics of the same old kind....which is why I voted for the more experienced candidate and will not cast a ballot unless her name, in some form, is on the ballot.

Just when I was getting over my anger, I felt duped by the party and this candidate all over again.

TGIF!


by darwinism on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

You are slamming Obama for something where Hillary acted exactly the same and you say you won't vote for him unless she is on the ballot? That is the height of hypocrisy. The very thing you are complaining about from Obama and his supporters. He was on the campaign trail and didn't come back to cast a meaningless vote. Why didn't she cast a vote on this issue. She is a Senator, after all. One that is senior to Obama. Where has she been on this issue?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

I'm sorry---it is not Hillary who put out a statement saying that they're ok with the FISA bill but will work hard to get the immunity off. Work hard means what exactly? How is that hypocritical?

If Hillary was the nominee and de facto head of the party, I would have expected her to gather enough votes on cloture to kill immunity. but she's not and she did not take a position on this.

It's not a meaningless vote. Being on the campaign trail is not a lame excuse...considering Novemeber is how many months away?


by darwinism on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

If Hillary was the nominee and de facto head of the party, I would have expected her to gather enough votes on cloture to kill immunity.
Then you would have been just as disappointed with her on this issue. As mentioned, she didn't vote and she doesn't even have the excuse of being on the campaign trail.

It's not a meaningless vote.
It was a meaningless vote. At best, it would have been symbolic. At worst, it would have pissed off a lot of Senators for being shown up.

Being on the campaign trail is not a lame excuse...
You are right, it's not a lame excuse. Glad you see it my way.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

meh... No evidence Clinton would have done things any different. With her voting past it actually seems there is ample evidence she would not have.


by notedgeways on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

She's not the candidate of "change." This really annoys me. Obama is essentially the left version of George W (yes, I said it). Both with paper think resume but where Bush used nice slogans like "compassionate conservatism" and ran against the continuation of the clinton years, Obama used nifty slogans AND pretty graphics to boot. It's all very meaningless.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 8/11384.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062701118. html


by darwinism on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

Obama's DP position is essentially the same as he displayed in Audacity of Hope. He hasn't "lurched to the center" on that, he's always been in the place he remains now.


by MNPundit on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (2.00 / 1)

The long and short?

We will not have a certified liberal candidate, much less president, for quite awhile.

This country is not a liberal country. Mainstream Democrats are not liberal, at best they are center-left.

Obama (or if it had been Clinton) are products of the current system of scale, which mandates certain types of beliefs and behaviors.

If people wanted liberal they would have voted Kucinich, perhaps talked of drafting Fiengold.

Even Gore is not a real liberal, except for perhaps on some environmental issues. Hell, just because you can identify a problem and suggest some ways of fixing it doesn't mean you are liberal.

My hope is that we get a left of center candidate, who sets the stage for a transition over the years towards a real liberal candidate.
Just as Regan beget Bush I beget (literally) Bush II, we could see a presidency that eventually moves this country towards something approaching a liberal mindset.

I've no illusions about Obama, I like him but he has, and will say and do things I disagree with. I still think he was the better of the two last Dem candidates (and would have been okay with the other). the only person that everyone can agree on , on all issues is themselves.


by notedgeways on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST

You said it yourself!! (1.50 / 2)

He's not the "flaming left liberal" that so many progressives were deluded to think he was. He never was. So here we are again with another moderate democrat...a capitucrat...only this one is an electoral college nightmare. Good going Obamabots!!!


John McCain: Country Club First!
by demwords on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST

Re: You said it yourself!! (none / 0)

An electoral college nightmare for the Republicans.

It appears that you might be a Hillary supporter from your use of the term 'Obamabots!!!' Do you think she was not a moderate Democrat?

What's with the negative labels anyway? "capitucrat"? "Obamabots!!!"?

Who did you support in the primary? Who would you like to see on the ticket with Obama?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You said it yourself!! (none / 0)

I was an Edwards supporter.
This is why. He had staked out the positions that were the boldest of any of the major candidates. His demographics as a white southern male allowed him to go farther to the left than a women or AA could ever go and get elected. It was just a cultural thing. The proof was that Edwards won every general election poll no matter what he said. Unfortunately our party was busy pitting two interests groups against each other in an affirmative action contest.
I don't for a minute think that Obama is going to win in places like Indiana.

...and his capitulation on FISA is an example of the disappointment we might expect if he gets elected.


John McCain: Country Club First!
by demwords on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG, he lurched to the center!!!! He's not a p (none / 0)

Edwards was my first choice, too. He's also my first choice for VP, although I think Clark is the front-runner for that position at this time. Edwards never gained traction, which is a shame. Blame it more on the media than on the party. I still think your use of terms like 'capitucrat' and 'Obamabots' is offensive and divisive.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:33:22 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.