Obama's New Approach: Contrast

A funny thing happened to Obama's "Move To The Middle" tour. After two weeks, it has abruptly ended, as the AP's Liz Sidoti writes:

Barack Obama has found something that eluded him during the primary season contrast. And, he's basking in it. . . . [V]ast disagreements with McCain on everything from economic philosophies to security proposals seem to have given Obama license to more aggressively and enthusiastically go after his foe. . . . These days, Obama assails McCain's position on the issues every chance he gets. He levels his charges with a commonsense tone and lighthearted touch that couches the criticism while making his core argument: McCain and President Bush are the same.

"If you are satisfied with the way things are going now, then you should vote for John McCain," Obama says before rattling off a list of current concerns, including rising gas prices, home foreclosures and job losses as the country fights two wars.

Of course this placed story (it seems impossible to believe that Obama aides were not pushing for this story) comes on the heels of two weeks of Obama campaign blurring and triangulation that clearly hurt Obama. From FISA to choice, Obama was "moving to the middle." The backlash must have stunned his campaign. Clearly, pushing for this story is due to this line of attack by McCain:

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds dismissed the criticism, saying: "Whether he's ditching positions for his own political gain or launching partisan attacks, Barack Obama has shown that he's your typical politician."

(Emphasis supplied.) Thus, Obama's team made sure this part of his campaign gets prominence now:

At a Georgia appearance, Obama noted McCain's long support for the Iraq war and objections to a withdrawal timetable. Conversely, Obama said: "I opposed this war from the start" and "I will bring this war to an end."

Later, in New York, Obama noted that McCain wants the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion to be overturned. Conversely, he said, "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose."

It just so happens that these are two issues that Obama was perceived to have "waffled" on recently. Obama's emphasis on these issues after the blowback from his "move to the middle" is not surprising. But it is still satisfying and positive.

Sidoti writes "This audience ate up Obama's criticism of McCain just like his crowds do every day." Just as the country will in November. If Obama sticks to the contrast. It is what America wants (of course the DC Village (Tom Daschle) never wants it.)

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Today's Big Bust | Obama No Longer Clinton 1992 Redux? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If contrast is the new Obama MO, cudos to BTD (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by pluege on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:51:56 AM EST
    for pushing hard and helping to bring the stupidity of Obama's past 2 weeks of 'moving to the middle' to the fore.

    I believe just yesterday BTD's pushing on this subject was questioned.

    If Obama and his campaign geniuses have truly realized their horrible mistake it would be a great success. If not, then hammer away.

    Obama supporters are doing the wincing now (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Josey on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:16:19 AM EST
    Chicago Tribune - July 13, 2008

    ....now the left is finally realizing it's been betrayed, on issue after issue, with Obama changing his positions in order to defeat a tired and disillusioned Republican Party in November.

    They're at the dance now and he's the one with the keys and he's the only ride they've got. And they don't like it.

    He has flip-flopped again and again, on campaign finance, on government eavesdropping of overseas phone calls, on gun control and even Iraq. Future President Obama now says he'll listen to his generals about when to withdraw. He didn't say he'd listen to the commissars of the blogosphere.

    This was the arggevation of the primaries... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by pluege on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:32:22 AM EST
    the stooopidity of the commissars of left blogosphere. To be inanely shouted at by such a collection of morons was very frustrating. And now we all are paying the price.

    Those who have expressed (4.75 / 4) (#52)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    "dismay" will vote for him anyway
    and it does not matter what he says, how he says it, or how he changes his stances. Even in July, he, the democratice presumptive, should be way, way ahead in the polls. The conservatives don't like McCain. I don't want a "Chicago pol" as the above article cites, I want someone who is willing to put themselves out there to save this country and to look out for its people. He is not that person, imo. As BTD always says, just another pol!

    Hooray for contrast! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:45:19 AM EST
    On paper, the idea of taking the social and national security issues off the table and contrasting ourselves with the GOP on economic issues ought to work wonderfully!  Never seems to quite work like that.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:10:38 AM EST
    Seems to me he is contrasting on Iraq at the least, a national security issue.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    As another post said in another thread, Obama and McCain are moving towards each other on Iraq, so I'm having difficulty seeing the contrast.

    LA Times

    "Initially, the war in Iraq was one of the hot-button disagreements. Obama made his early opposition to the war a cornerstone of his candidacy; McCain's calling card has been his support for the war and last year's troop increase. But in the course of the campaign, their differences have narrowed over the choices facing the next president.

    McCain has repeatedly opposed setting timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces, but more recently he has said he wants most troops out by 2013 -- the first time he has mentioned a specific date.

    Obama has repeatedly said he would withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office, but he has hedged in ways that would give him wide latitude: He says he will listen to military commanders, will react to events on the ground and may "refine" his plan after his upcoming trip to Iraq."


    Ha. I saw your link's headline (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:34:28 AM EST
    "Obama, McCain agree on many once-divisive issues"
    at the same time that I saw, on the google news page, the story linked by BTD here headlined the opposite.

    All I could think was: WORM messes with media minds.  And was that not even media on the campaign trail can figure out whether Obama means any of it.


    You can not criticize Obama for agreeing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    with McCain on some issues.

    "Their similar stances on immigration, nuclear weapons, global warming and stem-cell research are evidence of a centrist shift in the political landscape."

    Actually, this is perfect branding for progressivism. John McCain favors stem cell research. accepts the existence of climate change and combatting it. Is moderate on immigration. I am not familiar with the nuclear weapons issue referred to.

    That McCain has abandoned conservative and GOP orthodoxy on the others and it is called "Centrist" is a victory, for progressivism.


    I'm not criticizing him for agreeing with McCain (none / 0) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    I'm saying it's hard (and going to get harder) for him to contrast himself with McCain, when they agree on so much.  And while their positions on stem cell research may be "progressive", I would argue their stances on Iraq, FISA, faith based initiatives, etc., would not be a victory for progressivism.

    It is easy to contrast with McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    because they disagree on so much.

    On Iraq, they did not and do not agree. How am I to take you seriously when you write something like that?

    On FISA and other issues, I think my record here speaks for itself as to whether I am willing to criticize Obama.

    I do not think your argument holds water and thus weakens those of us trying to hold Obama's feet to the fire. You  are not helping imo.


    How do you know they don't agree? (4.50 / 2) (#46)
    by Radix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    On Iraq I mean. What is Obama's position on Iraq, exactly? Do you know, because I sure don't and would really like to.

    Sen. Obama says he is going to (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    Iraq to learn.  Position to follow?

    That's Steve's point. (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    Taking social and security issues off the table didn't work.

    You ready to take my point yet? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:45:10 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:40:06 AM EST
    And he is contrasting on choice now, after trying unsuccessfully to blur the distinction.  Good for him.

    Maybe flip flopping back is a better way to (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Saul on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:00:43 AM EST
    explain this. But you can't hide that he changes on the fly.  What will his new approach be next week.
    He gives the Republicans and the 527 so much ammo.

    Obama the candidate of change.  If you don't like his position just wait a while

    Nope, at this point, it's flopflipping. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    I like to refer to it as (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:01:46 AM EST
    ping-ponging...it's on this side of the net, ooh - now it's on the other - whoa - here it comes back again...it's just such a...game.

    Good, now keep with this! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    If they do, I predict a solid win.

    How they failed to predict what would happen with their other "strategy" escapes me.

    Well even a stopped crock can technically be true (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:21:13 AM EST
    ... on a cold day in July.

    "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose."

    I'll give him this much: He sure wasn't backing down in defending them while he was working his @ss off to erode them!

    Didn't do it while riding the Unity Pony to embrace no choice deadbeats like hard right evangelicals mere hours after ...

    Thugging NARAL for an endorsement ...

    Then promptly sending out a missive to his supporters and others to withhold funds from them and other "interest groups" and send instead to the Obama Campaign. (The Presumptive Emperor in Chief will dole the juice out personally to those interest groups he deems worthy and/or politically expedient that particular week.) And of course,

    Stumping for weeks with his no-choice BFF Sen Casey, who has vowed to use his office to overturn Roe and, further, to regard fertilized eggs as requiring more constitutional protection than the disposable fertility pods that carry one.

    Reproductive rights geeks need not worry that a woman's right to choose Obama's way or the highway won't remain intact (that week, except if it's not working for him, in which case, no.)

    I feel choosier already.

    You also are not mollified (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    by reading that "Obama was perceived to have "waffled'" but now is perceived to not be waffling?  I think he needs to do a lot more to manage this issue, too.  Even a little waffling goes a long way.

    I love that (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    "I used to be seen as unprincipled and ready to do anything to win the election... but the polls came out, and now I've changed my mind, and you'll see that I'm NOT!"

    Is this a parody campaign, ala Paulsen 1968?


    Pesterbot Alert: B!tch not over it, needs to Heel (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    N'yuk. Not feeling the mollification.

    For some odd reason, the promised continual erosion of anyone's Constitutional protections -- whether by the right wing or the Right Kind of People -- makes me inexplicably irritable, headachey, moody, bloated and gassy.

    I realize it's my own fault. I thought that demanding the same privacy men have to repel uninvited, unqualified, unwelcome parties from wandering in and speechifying on one's personal medical and moral life decisions was straightforward enough.

    But no.

    Perhaps I didn't express my "feelings" on this in a way that Obama could relate to: do you think Leggo My Eggo would get him fighting for my rights as as passionately as he fought for his waffle?

    Teh Fauxgressive Army has vowed to redouble THEIR fight for reproductive rights by dumping on NARAL regularly, like a kind of man-period that women can have too if they know the Right Kind of People.

    It's the only Special Interest that gets micro-surveilled and castigated by Fauxgressives, as all the other ones aren't slatternly, wantonly getting into unspeakable messes and demanding abortions all over the place.

    NARAL embarrasses Fauxgressives in ways too shameful to articulate with the precision and delicacy they'd use on Other Special Interest Groups, were those not operating with such breathtaking administrative efficiency and ethical adherance to mandate that, really, Fauxgressives would need to look long and hard to find something wrong there.

    Or even just look.

    And perhaps they will, once they whip NARAL into shape!

    Imagine an org so slovenly, promiscuous and incapable of keeping its pants on it was responsible not only for failing to endorse Lieberman, but then later endorsing Lieberman and foisting his whiny ass on Fauxgressives!! How many abortions does the group feckin' need, ferchrissakes?

    Oh dear, I've run off at the fingers again. The joints are aching, the temples are throbbing and the appetite's a toss-up. AGAIN.

    My feet hurt. I'm shaking all over and I'm confused again. Where's that damn period? I need to consult with my doctor, my pastor, Barack Obama and every other schmuck so obsessively fixated on my uterus you'd think they had franchises there.


    How many times were we attacked ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    in the seven years before that? And the seven years before that? It seems odd to me to point to the biggest failure of the Bush Administration as a reason in favor of continued Republican rule.

    The Democrats always lose on the subjects you cite because they always cede the Republican viewpoint at the start of the contest.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    I don't see the Oklahoma City bombing as a failure of national security, any more than, say, the Virginia Tech shooting.

    Actually (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    Without parroting the Republican talking points, the USS Cole was attacked in 2000 (before the election),  our embassies in Africa were bombed in 1998, and the first WTC bombing was in 1993.

    Our soldiers are attacked every day (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Our allies were attacked in Madrid and in London.

    You distort the point made.


    definition of terrorism (none / 0) (#40)
    by popsnorkle on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST
    According to a glossary for Frontline Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

    I don't agree with limiting it to "unlawful use." I think a better definition is "violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear." Either case, I don't think all war is terrorism.  Sometimes its straight forward use of force for territory


    All war and acts (none / 0) (#62)
    by PamFl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:07:56 PM EST
    of violence are a form of terrorism. In the ole days, we called it "guerilla warfare"-i.e., tactics that are unpredictible and do not conform to traditional or historical "rules" of warfare.

    There's a much longer string of terrorism (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    Beirut Lebanon, Oct 23, 1983 (Wikipedia):
    Besides a few shellings, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans.

    Thus begins the sequential failures of Saint Ronnie, Cap "the knife" Weinberger, & George "Bechtel" Schulz.

    St. Ronnie fostered, trained, & supplied Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    The Reagan administration created, trained & funded, the insane terrorism of the Nicaraguan Contras to oppose the Sandanistas.  This led, directly & in turn, to the Iran-Contra debacle of selling weapons to terrorists in exchange for cash that was used to fund other terrorists.

    Looking for the seeds of worldwide terrorism (coming fast on the heels of closing out the anti-communist foreign policy of the Cold War) lands squarely on the ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, & insanity of the "Great Communicator," Mr. Teflon, the alzheimer's poster-boy for the Grand Old Party & his collection of rightwingnutz idealogues in the White House.

    And putting 11 of those 14 klownz in prison could not put the forces of evil back into the Pandora's box of international terrorism.


    Of course, you ARE parroting Republican (3.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM EST
    talking points.

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    The comment was that we were not attacked before Bush took office.  I don't think it's a Republican talking point to show that factually, that was not true.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    It's not a republican talking point to point out what you pointed out.

    The republican talking point is that Democrats did nothing to address that situation.


    The end of the 50 state strategy? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nellre on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    The claims Obama could turn red to blue are being abandon?

    BTW, when Hillary used contrast they called it the kitchen sink.

    If I have to hear this man say, "I was (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    against this war from the start" one more time, I may throw up.  When I hear it, I think, "Goody-goody for you, Barack - but what did you actually do about this strong conviction of yours?  Oh, yeah - NOTHING."

    So, whether he is out there "contrasting" John McCain against some position Obama had this week or last year, or "always," - which might mean he had the same position for two weeks in a row - I am reminded that with Obama, it's pretty much all talk, backed up by pretty much, nothing.

    It's pretty sad to see people get excited because two mediocre candidates - who change their positions like they do their underwear - happen to have honest-to-God opposing views on the same day; wonder how long that will last?

    I'd call it (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by snstara on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    the campaign's craven attempt at course 'correction', with all the dripping irony at my disposal.  

    This week the senator (still!) from Illinois had an opportunity to live up to his own word and show us where he stood on the constitution, our civil liberties, and telco immunity. These are hardly  'liberal' issues: some conservatives are as furious as we are.

    So what did Obama do? He cowered.  He is the democratic nominee for the presidency, and he just failed to lead.  If I were a disaffected conservative republican or independent, looking for someone to put the brakes on the constitutional shredding party, would I now choose Barack Obama?  I believe this has cost him the very votes he needs.

    I understand that the 'product placement' of a news article by the campaign is recognition that they've alienated their base.  I understand why people would view the placement of such an article positively.  I do not.  The root problem is the candidate. The swaggering hubris and the hectoring speeches really go down a treat from someone without the courage to stand behind his own words.  He just helped throw our constitution under the bus.  But hey, anything to win, right?

    I don't think (none / 0) (#64)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    Obama is much of a leader.  Everything about his style of "bipartisan" dealmaking has to do with him caving in to what others want.

    That's not leadership.    


    My problem is simple. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    How can I figure out in what Obama contrasts with McCain since he changes his position so often?

    How many times are the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    masses going to get sucked and suckered into the "words" of Sen. Obama. He keeps "changing" his message to accommodate the criticism of the day, or week, or month. This, once again, is flipping on what he's been doing and not apparently without notice. If you can see he's changing his message, then his message isn't truth.

    bet me they will! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Those who have expressed "dismay" will vote for him anyway

    some might, feeling they've no other choice (assuming he actually is the dem. nominee), many, such as myself, won't.

    i wouldn't vote mccain for dogcatcher, but i will certainly avail myself of our state's write-in option.

    If you are choosing to not vote for either (none / 0) (#55)
    by Radix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    Dem or Repub for President, then your vote will do the most good if there's a third party candidate whom you could support. The only way things will change, amongst either party, is if they see another party gaining power.

    Third Party Viability (none / 0) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    I think that the strong 3rd party candidates of the past few years have been Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Hillary Clinton.

    Not that she IS a third party candidate, nor would I encourage it, but the way she was treated / ostracized during the primary would make you think she had been one.

    Sorry if this is too O/T; It just occurred to me that Hillary has almost as many votes in the primary for her as Ross Perot had in the 1992 General Election: 19.7 Million vs 18.0 Million.

    Still a fart in the wind compared to the BIG TWO, but interesting.


    True. Interesting to note the (none / 0) (#58)
    by Radix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    response of the GOP. They neutralized Perot, during his second run, by adopting some of Perot's own positions. Not all, clearly, but a few. If Nader could have a similar showing, the Dems would be forced to do the same.

    People should just tell pollsters they're for (none / 0) (#63)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    Nader, even if they aren't. Apparently, if he pols ten percent, he gets to be in the debates. Of course, that assumes there will BE debates -if Obama doesn't run and hide.   I'd sure love to see Nader be there, though.

    The Gramm Incident (none / 0) (#4)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:41:39 AM EST
    could not have come too soon. Obama jumped on that one and ran with it. If he keeps that up, I think his numbers will improve.

    It's all about the economy now.

    Brain dead (none / 0) (#8)
    by DoggieDaddy on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    30 years ago while I was in high school the
    student body elections were run better than BO's

    Maybe the brain trust behind the man needs a
    refresher civics class.

    Criticism will be appropriately toned down, (none / 0) (#16)
    by methuselas baby on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM EST
    But I will not give him a walk on FISA.  As Senator Feingold pointed out, the true depth of the depravity of Bush's domestic surveillance policies has yet to surface.  I remain unconvinced.  I will vote for him, reluctantly, instead of wasting my vote on an independent candidate, for obvious reasons.

    Comments by Mumia Abu Jamal on Obama closely correspond to my own.

    Oh, my tiny monitor made it hard to find the link button.  Cool, I don't have to write the xml myself.

    I don't think voting third party is a waste, (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Radix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    that's just the myth that's being peddled. If support for the two main parties started to erode and this erosion took the form in another party getting stronger, not simply less people voting. Then either the main parties adopt new positions or they become extinct. The problem is, this is not a short term strategy and would most likely require some pain and sacrifice on our part. This is a war, the only question remains, is it worth fighting? If it is worth fighting then what are we willing to risk to win?

    It's not hard to contrast (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    with john mccain.  sometimes it's hard to do the right thing.

    and unless one is willing to accept that a change in tactics, a change in strategy, and reduction in troops is a valid set of policies to run on, then it makes no sense AT ALL to regard Obama's contrast with McCain on Iraq/National security as any different than McCain's.  Truly.

    As a moron won't hesitate to tell you -- if we were discussing how Clinton would be different than McCain, --  "If you leave one troop in Iraq, YOU ARE NOT ENDING THE WAR."

    Contrast my a.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by koshembos on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    The surprising discovery of the AP reporter is down right ridiculous. This is what every campaign does. You show that your positions are better than your rival's. This and negative campaigning are what campaigns do.

    Are reporters are hired by selecting only and strictly the incompetent? It seems so.

    Come now (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    the importance of the story is that this is what the Obama camp sold the AP reporter, not the stupidity of the reporter herself.

    How is supporting the execution of serial child (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve Davis on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    rapists, or the support of the second amendment, considered some betrayal of democratic values? Most democrats support those positions. Hell, I'm uncomfortable with the death penalty, but I can certainly see child rape being an issue on which lots of folks will fully support Obama's position. That's not "moving to the center," unless Obama somewhere has indicated that he previously wasn't supportive of the execution of child rapists. And FISA? I'd be surprised if most voters could tell you what the acronym stands for. If Obama is better off not having to spend the summer burning advertising money while trying to defend a nuanced position against telecom immunity, then god bless him. He can retool the program when he's president.

    How is your comment relevant to my post? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    If you can not comment on the topic of the post, do not comment at all.

    Consider yourself warned. Off topic comments will be deleted.


    Big Tent, your entire is on Obama's (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve Davis on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    "move to the center." I'm pointing out he hasn't "moved to the center." And stop bullying me. Your supposedly a big tent democrat, so stop behaving like a RedState concern troll.

    You are suspended (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    from my threads.

    Comment no further in them.

    The bullying is complete.


    Looks Like You May Get (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    The fighting dem contrast candidate you have been pining for all along. I think it is easy for Obama as his policies are mostly opposite from McCain. All he has to do is keep pointing it out.

    This I do not believe though:

    The backlash must have stunned his campaign.

    For whatever reason Obama did his two week shift to the center, I think his campaign was bracing for the backlash from his core supporters, and were not stunned that progressives were ready to walk.

    The center move did prepare progressives to get very excited about this new approach. We have been starved and now we are ready to eat it up.

    I would have preferred (none / 0) (#51)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    that he not have voted for FISA the way he did, perhaps leading the rest of the dems to vote against it, instead of 'feinting' to the center to make us more hungry for it. The other stuff, sure, fine; it was all just words. But that FISA vote will stick to him for the rest of the election.

    Mininally (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    But that FISA vote will stick to him for the rest of the election.

    Yes, in your mind and my mind, and a few thousand others' mind, but for 99% of the voters, they could care less. It is way too arcane an issue for most.


    Well we did have contrast (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    in the first few weeks of the campaign, during the initial economy tour.  Then we had the move to the center.  Now contrast again...I am not sure what "the" strategy is.  I think having two strategies is the strategy.

    I wonder if his FISA (none / 0) (#53)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:37:11 PM EST
    vote would have been different had he "changed" his campaign strategy before that vote!