This "shifting to the center" meme is a right-wing smear to define BO as a flip-flopper.  Barack Obama has always held these positions.  Check the records; Read Audacity of Hope; Please check your issues.  BO did not shift to the center as many right-wing pundits are claiming. The followings are positions that BO has held for as long as we've known him:

On NAFTA - No change, BO is and has been a free-trader all along but wanted trade-deals with labor standards to protect American workers.

On Guns - BO has always supported the right to bear arm as contained in 2nd Amendment (that's why he won Idaho, Colorado, etc. in the primary)

On Abortion - his current position has always been his position (that's why they EMILY's list attacked him in New Hampshire).

On Death Penalty - Go and check BO's Illinois record, where he led the reform there not to ban death penalty but to ensure a transparent and judicious death penalty system.

On Faith Based initiatives - Read Audacity of Hope.  This has been BO's position all along.

On Iraq -  BO has always had this "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline in consultation with Commanders on the ground.

So in conclusion, I give it to the Republican for having succeeded in fooling the Democrats and the Press to embrace their talking point.   They wanted to define BO as a flip-flopper the way they did against John Kerry.  Ask yourself, why were the Press and McCain campaign so fast to twist BO's reiteration of his Iraq position?  And this is the same position he's held since the first day he came up with "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline.  Same position from September of 2007

So wake up folks; read your copy of Audacity of Hope; check BO's records to see that he's a pragmatic left-of-the-center democrat.

The first half of today's show was about patriotism, and it was juicy. The second was about Barack Obama's shift to the center and John McCain's Campaign Shake up.

A substantive discussion amongst the panelists about what patriotism means. Bob Scheer expounds on George Washington's farewell speech; Tony Blankley talks about how the theme plays out politically; Matt Miller shares thoughts by Peter Beinart of Time Magazine that the right says "America's great," the left says, "Here's what would make America great;" and Arianna Huffington mentions the USA Today poll that says 2/3 of Americans think that protesting is patriotic. Are Obama's moves toward swing voters going to win him votes or just the animosity of his base? And will John McCain's campaign recover its footing with new guy, Steve Schmidt, at the helm.

There have been a lot of attack, gloating and hateful diaries here lately - WHICH I DO NOT CONDONE.  And I think my reputation proves this. To me, smears and nonsense have no place here.

That being said it got me thinking about the primaries, results, candidates and MyDD.  And my head is spinning....  Let us first look at the mandate of this site.

About MyDD
MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power. We do polling, research, commentary, analysis, and activism.

So simply MyDD is a partisan site working to elect Democrats.  Right?

Further - the response from many in the community to most critical BO diaries is - leave, you're bashing the Democratic nominee.  And while I believe there is a double-standard (as critical HRC diaries for the most part do not receive the same disdain) there also another bizarre monkey-wrench to add to the mix.

Namely that due to the nature of the nominating process and the fact that Independents by a wide margin led BO to victory - how does this effect the MyDD community?  I mean many BO supporters are not partisan 'Democrats' right?  Or if life-long partisan 'Democrats' here who were HRC supporters OR want to question or criticize the presumptive nominee then why shouldn't they be able to?  I'm not sure if this is coming out as I intend it to.  But the whole thing is kind of a mind f#&$. Discuss.

Will the Democratic Presidential candidates debate the issues important to Puerto Rico?  Puerto Rican's hope so.  Univision extended an invitation with hopes the two candidates will.

Of course, Hillary Clinton immediately accepted Univision's invitation, as she has always tried to focus on the issues important to the people.  

Senator Obama has indicated he is aware that voters care about issues and has signaled that he is aware that Puerto Rico has unique concerns.  

Obama -- who along with rival Hillary Clinton stumped in Puerto Rico on this Memorial Day weekend before next week's Democratic primary -- vowed to help with issues ranging from new parking spaces for a veterans' hospital to ensuring that Puerto Ricans have a say over whether they participate in any future military drafts.

``I recognize that for all of you to be subject potentially to serving this country and not having a voice is a great concern,' Obama said

Oregonians by the thousands have signed petitions asking for a debate.  Oregonians care about the issues and want to hear the candidates discuss their policies and the differences between the two Democratic candidates.

Debate Watch, Day 21: Three Weeks and Obama Ignores a Debate on Oregon Issues
It has been three weeks – three weeks of sidestepping. As the Obama campaign continues to “review the best way to speak to Oregon voters,” Hillary is waiting to debate oregon issues and her Oregon Compact. Sign the petition at www.debateoregon.com and read the Oregon Compact at www.oregoncompact.com.

Obama has refused to hold anymore debates despite the many offers from news outlets and tv in Oregon.  Claiming the 4 he held with Senator Clinton was enough for him and backed out of the North Carolina debate, refused Indiana's debate and now again, Oregon.

Since its becoming more and more clear that Obama will be the nominee, as a Clinton supporter and Democrat first, I will obviously be supporting him. Also I agree with a lot of his policies, I just agreed with Clinton's a little more. Anyway, I do two concerns about him that I do keep on noticing....

1. One reason I chose Clinton is how great she was in debates. I could very well see her wiping the floor with McCain. For Obama, he seemed to be "ok" but always came across as frustrated and made it clear he wasn't enjoying the debate. I really hope that will change.

2. His campaign. He says he wont be swift-boated and will respond to every controversy immediately, yet when the Wright thing happened, even though it was extremely clear what he had to say and do, he waited. Kinda gives me concerns about the GE but hopefully he'll improve.

 Also, when the gas tax holiday debate came out, it was clear to everyone to run with the "the oil companies will just raise their prices anyway" mantra to shut down the whole debate in general. Instead it was somewhat here and there used but for the most part not so much.

So yeah, those have been some of my two main concerns about him. Hopefully he'll be able to pick up the pace.

Thoughts? Comments?

Oh boy. It seems fairly evident that after today, Rev. Wright's desire for the spotlight is going to become the major problem for the Obama campaign going into the Indiana primary and the North Carolina primary.

I hope the damage he will do to the Obama campaign will serve as a lesson to Midwestern African-American and Latino communities who have still not learned that racially fueled rage is counterproductive to 'our' economic and social advancement as 13% and approaching 24% of the U.S. population. While this rage it is certainly something that ANYONE who has ever been 'othered' whether that be because of weight, race, accent or disability can relate to, as Wright's big mouth tanking is proving, it doesn't get 'us' anywhere.

As a native South Sider, I want to apologize to all of the people who put their political faith and volunteer time in the Obama campaign. My fellow South Siders should be going to counseling instead of appearing before the National Press Club.

Growing up in what is one of the most segregated environs in the U.S., I certainly had my share of harrowing racial experiences, such as having my hair lit on fire in the middle of an English class, simply because of my race. I've been beat up in the basement of the Rock and Roll McDonald's by drunk Chicago Police officers who kicked me until I told them "I'm just another nigger" after they found my college ID in my wallet. Yes, I've had plenty of polarizing experiences but I do not let them define me or my relationships with white people. Grown ups get over things, put them in perspective and move on.

I left Chicago because I found the demands by my community to be angry and defiant. These demands would end in social isolation if one, as a man of color, didn't conform to this strange social norm: and yes it is strange in present day America. Nearly the entire Midwest is like this.One activist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Sara Tibebu even pressed false charges against me, telling police I was going to kidnap her (even though I do not have a car), and tried to get me kicked out of school because I refused to participate in that culture on the UW Madison campus. I was going to a top 50 University, what did I have to be angry about?

To the rest of my fellow Democrats of all races, I apologize for what this is doing to the party. Those who are the ilk of Rev. Wright, Rev. James Meeks and all the other rage filled creeps are only one, small faction of the Obama coalition. I don't believe Senator Obama, being a transplant, knew how insane these people could be. I mean that sincerely.

I hope the process of all you angry, angry people in the Midwest - angry as you go to good schools and drive luxury automobiles - totally ruining this thing for Senator Obama will serve as a lesson to all of you about what rage does when it is figured into  into equation for the velocity of hope.

These rage-filled people have held an iron-fist grip on the world of inner city activism. I hope that after what they did to Obama, this late in the campaign, they are driven from the fold of the Democratic Party forever. They have hurt us as a party for too many years with their counterproductive views mixed with a crabs-in-a-barrel mentality.

The Clintons' are also at fault for having not purged this cadre back in the 1990's then working to replace them with new leadership.

Maybe Nader will embrace them, he seems to be into pointless rage these days.

I am truly embarrassed for my side of the Windy City. Maybe those of us on the left need to stop avoiding the concept of a Black and Latino political class.

Broken: Hillary Clinton Refuses To Debate

There was a time when Hillary refused to debate, and to debate one of the most important issues facing a nation. Back in 2006, most might not remember she had a challenger in the Democratic race for Senator of the State of New York. Yes, a one Jonathan Tasini decided to take up the cause of the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party and challenge the then hawk Hillary Clinton to a debate. A debate that was sorely needed at the time.

Hillary Clinton refused to debate. She refused to allow a "Lincoln-Douglass" dialogue to occur for her constitutents, snobbing them all and her fellow party members. Clinton held a very elitist view that Tasini was not worthy of a debate, that his voice, the voice of the anti-war Democrats were not worth her time.

Then again, she was busy campaing for Lieberman at the time, so maybe she didn't have time to debate.

Maybe she thought New Yorkers didn't deserve to here about view and policy from another democratic contender. Maybe she thought, why worry her beautiful mind coming to terms with her war votes and cheerleading, which was  a major plank in Tasini's platform.

Or worse yet, Tasini might bring to light Hillary's Orwellian ploy during the Working Families Party fiasco. Obscured by being a minor third party, Hillary made sure she was on their ballot as well. Except she ran with the slogan, "As an anti-war vote, vote for Hillary Clinton."

Never mind the fact she voted for the war, and had yet fumbled repeatedly on her denouncement of that vote. This was 2006, and she was still a little hawkish. And her latest tirade against Iran makes her "anti-war" stance even more comical. But let's regress, this is about Hillary Clinton refusing to debate, not her horrific track record on foreign policy.

Of course, it might not have been the war, which caused Hillary to snub Tasini and New York Democrats as not worthy of her time. Maybe she caught wind that Tasini is a tour de force in the grassroots labor movement. He was ready to talk about her being on the board of Wal-Mart, had all her quotes about NAFTA lined up. She knew she should would be held accountable, so she did not want to debate.

In fact, she refused to even acknowledge Tasini and his supporter's existence, with an air of elitism that would make bloodblues blush red.

And it was not like there wasn't a call for the debates from major media outlets:

From the New York Time:
Hillary Clinton's Low Profile
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/opinio n/21mon3.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&o ref=slogin&oref=slogin

With only a few weeks until New York's Sept. 12 primary elections, many people are probably still unaware that Senator Hillary Clinton is facing a challenge for the Democratic nomination. Her opponent, Jonathan Tasini, is low on almost everything, from funds to name recognition. Mrs. Clinton has successfully ignored Mr. Tasini all summer, and now it seems clear that she has no intention of responding to his demands that she meet him in a debate.

She should change her mind. In a year when New York has very few competitive elections, voters are going to get very little chance to hear serious discussions from the candidates. Since Mr. Tasini is running an antiwar campaign, it would be very useful for New Yorkers to have a chance to hear the two Democratic candidates debate that one issue.

New York voters have been exposed to all the political drama in Connecticut over Senator Joseph Lieberman, who like Mrs. Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq. She has been far more critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war -- a point the Clinton campaign makes pains to point out. But she has not been forced to discuss in great detail exactly what she thinks should be done now that things have gone so far awry in the Middle East.

Presuming she wins the primary, Mrs. Clinton will go up against a weak Republican candidate this fall. Anything can happen in an election, but there is a very good chance she could coast all the way to November without being tested on any important issue. Right now is a good time to make sure that does not happen.

And now, she wants to debate. It's funny how when she was in the leading position, she refused to honor one of the greatest traditions of democracy, an open debate. But now that she needs free media time, she is acting like the second coming of Bryant.

And even with her elitist snobbing of Tasini, he still did rather well in the primary:

17% with 250,000 votes.

Had there actually been debates for the citizens of New York, Hillary knew it could have been much closer, maybe to close for comfort.

Which is why Hillary refused to debate then, and why her argument today is broken.