home

On Flip Flops And Contrast

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have a closetful of flip flops on issues. What is interesting about the flip flops is McCain has flip flopped towards the right - on the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on immigration, on everything. There is no moving to the "middle" for McCain. There is only moving to the far right. He is really running for Bush's third term. Obama's flip flops have him moving to the right as well, aligning him closer to Bush's third term, instead of making clear he will be a break from the extremism of the Bush years.

It is as if Obama has an inner Dick Morris he is listening to. McCain playing to his base will not be covered as pandering. Obama should consider that for a moment. That perhaps honoring his own base will be seen as a moment of strength for him. In Nigel Hamilton's book on Bill Clinton, "Mastering the Presidency", Hamilton describes the inner cowardice of Morris, who advised Clinton to cave in to Newt Gingrich even though Morris' own polling told him that Clinton was winning that battle in political terms:

The [1995] budget showdown was permitting the President's somewhat blurry presidential image to become clear - at last. "Bill Clinton's image had not come into sharp focus for most Americans," even his press secretary Mike McCurry, later admitted. "Who is this guy? Where is he on the political spectrum?" How does he relate to me and my needs? [The government shutdown battle] was the moment in which they finally said, 'He's fighting for these things I care about. He's fighting against these Republicans in Congress who want to take the country in a direction I don't believe in.'"

Dick Morris . . . was now hoist on his own petard. A coward by nature, he hated the shutdown of the government, which he feared might backfire politically. Yet Morris' own polls suggested the President should hold firm rather than give in. Day by day the President's approval improved as those of the Republican leaders dropped. By mid-November [1995], Bill Clinton's overall approval rating as President was over 52% - his highest for 18 months. Gingrich's favorability rating, by contrast, had dropped to 25%.

(Emphasis supplied.) Bill Clinton had appeared strong by standing up to the Republicans. He looked as if he stood for something, and he explained what that something was. It amazes me that Democrat have never understood the political significance of what happened in that episode.

Obama's inner Dick Morris is leading him down a terrible path politically. Yesterday, the NYTimes Ed Board wrote:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

What is unstated in the editorial is the lack of confidence that there will not be changes regarding those "vital differences." Obama now appears a "finger in the wind" pol (forget whether he is or not.) He does not appear ready to stand for anything. And that is a dangerous image for a pol. Indeed, it is the typical image of the Dem running for President. Bill Clinton helped himself overcome that image by standing strong on the government shutdown against Newt Gingrich.

Obama needs to overcome his inner Dick Morris, or he could find a way to lose this unloseable election - which would make him the biggest Dem loser of all time.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Gonzo Review: Hunter, 1972 and Today | That Was Then, This Is Now: Combat As Qualification Edition >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't think he can lose to McCain (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:05:03 AM EST
    given current circumstances. Or at least it would be difficult to.

    And I think he knows that. Therefore, he can say or do whatever he wants.

    Agree and disagree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:08:37 AM EST
    I think he can not lose either, thanks to Bush.

    But I do not believe he is "doing whatever he wants." I think he is acting in a way he thinks maximizes his chances to win.

    I think he is wrong. He needs to stop listening to his inner Dick Morris.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, you have been (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by coolit on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:42:25 AM EST
    stressing for a while how some Dems try to flee from their ideals to please as many people as possible.  It ends up pleasing nobody because it looks like they wont actually stand up for anything they believe in.  Like you said, that's what made Clinton such a master.  He figured out his stance and then stuck with it.

    Obama better figure this out very quick or he's gonna come down with a bad case of Kerryitis and become as unelectable as John Kerry was.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think their ideals change (none / 0) (#170)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    when they acquire money and power, and spend a lot of their time with others who are privileged.  Or at least they forget why they had such ideals.  I think this is true for too many of them, but not all.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a very dangerous assumption to make (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    both for us and for the Obama team.

    Everytime we think we can't lose we manage to find a way to do just that. We have already nominated the inferior candidate...does he have to run an inferior campaign that thumbs it's nose at progressive ideals as well?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think it's a dangerous assumption at all (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    Never have I seen a candidate given such a free pass by the admiring media, progressives, and democrats. I believe there is nothing he could say or do at this point that would make these people not vote for him. If he started saying tomorrow "I won't cut and run in Iraq" and "I don't believe in socialized medicine", everyone would just start rationalizing the true wisdom of Obama. He will win. It's a given IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree, it is very dangerous... (4.50 / 4) (#186)
    by IzikLA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    Remember that, despite the admiring media the likes of which we've never seen, Clinton clobbered him in many states even after it was stated time and time again that the race was wrapped up and it was mathematically impossible for her to win.  That should raise some red flags and instead we are ignoring them.  

    I agree that the worst mistake we could make is to think we have this in the bag.  Despite all the polls I think this is going to be a lot tougher than we are anticipating.  

    Also, to me it feels like the excitement has faded.  It faded towards the end of the primaries and it doesn't seem to have picked back up.  He's also not doing anything to fire up his base right now, quite the opposite, he is "refining" his positions in ways that are not pleasing many of us.

    I am no die-hard Obama supporter but I certainly don't want McCain in the White House.  Let's please NOT assume this time that this election is ours.

    [ Parent ]

    You may be right (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    but I don't think so. Did Obama lose votes to Clinton in spite of everything? Yes. Will he lose votes to McCain? I don't think so - not the way the MSM, the dems in power, and the progressive netroots are committed to propping him what no matter what he does.

    [ Parent ]
    You are right about the excitement fading (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by BernieO on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    Just look at his numbers. He is barely ahead of McCain in the polls in spite of the fact the the public is completely disgusted with Bush and the Republicans. He should be polling in the 60's at least, not the 40's. That is really a bad sign.

    I get so frustrated when the media accepts McCain's catering to his base while endorsing Obama's turning on his. The result is that people to the left of center have no one representing them. This pushes the discussion to the right AGAIN, further legitimizing the right's world view. Our votes are taken for granted which is ridiculous. I would bet there is as much danger of people on the left, particularly Hillary supporters, defecting as there are people on the far right rejecting McCain in November.

    [ Parent ]

    even so (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    theres always his legacy to think about.

    And the actual business of being a better than crappy president.

    [ Parent ]

    Any day now I expect (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    to see this
    In a continuation of his move to the Center/Right Barack Obama's campaign announced today that he'll be giving his acceptance speech outdoors, in Minneapolis, during the Republican National Convention.


    He is, I hear (2.00 / 1) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    planning to give his acceptance speech in Denver not in the convention hall but a big outdoor stadium that seats 75,000.  The normal sort of coronation isn't enough for him, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    How many Dems were at (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    Kennedy's "coronation" in 1960 at the LA Coliseum?  

    And what is the proper limit on audience numbers lest it be deemed by some an unseemly coronation?

    Perhaps too Obama shouldn't actually deliver his acceptance speech, since that might unduly rouse people's emotions and hopes, which would be bad, and instead merely show up and waive to the crowd and then deliver a printed handout to attendees.  Just anticipating some possible objections here to his style of speechifying and audience reaction.

    But please help me out here on what you deem proper.  I'm young and have so much to learn.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's a good thing. (none / 0) (#171)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    More people can attend.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The flip flopping wouldn't be possible (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Jim J on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    without the adoring complicity of his starstruck followers. I took a trip to a certain orange-tinted blog last night to see the number one diary on the rec list, which called out the proprietor for giving Obama flack on the FISA walkback.

    It was filled with vicious, potty-mouthed little naifs who insisted, in literal terms and in so many words, that Obama can do no wrong and whatever he does is fine by them.

    I remember such rhetoric -- though frankly more artfully expressed -- in 2001-2004, when the subject of said adoration was George W. Bush. It was wrong and dangerous then, and it's wrong and dangerous now.

    You might be unpleasantly surprised at how few people understand that, however.

    Unity Pony? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    I was pleasantly surprised to see the FISA pushback at the Great Orange.  I'd assumed it's been taken over by Obamadulation and that Issues were going to be ignored until after November.

    One user's sig line is "We. Have. To. Win.".  This all purpose answer to every doubt and criticism is not accepted universally though.  There's a lot of commenters saying "Where's the beef?".

    The party split between the faith-based and the reality-based is evident even at the orange place.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#115)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    I was assured by some Obama fans at MyDD that the reason Obama took such a long time to come out with a statement on FISA is that he was working really, really hard behind the scenes to rally the Democratic caucus, but he just couldn't find enough votes.  They believe this with all their heart.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    Just wow.

    [ Parent ]
    What caucus? (none / 0) (#172)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    It seems that Obama has forgotten they exist.  He's nearly abandoned his day job.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why support Obama (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    You keep making my point.

    The last post was on Sen Church vs Sen Obama.  A negative post against Obama
    The emphasis added was the following:
       

    Obama's actions can not be excused on this matter. He has failed miserably.

    My answer to that post was

    Is this not enough to question whether one should support Obama?   To rationalize and say well he is the only democrat nominee we got and I wish there was another one and yes he is better than McCain, is like saying I picking the better of two evils.  Every day I read more negative things about Obama than positive things as they are posted here on TL.  Maybe he will not be who the delegates vote for at the convention if this trend continues.

    Now just withing the next day we have another negative post on Obama.  You keep making my point.

    I say lets wait till the convention.  Maybe there is still hope they will pick the right nominee.

    I have had it up to here (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    with these attempts to hijack my posts.

    Vote for whomever you like but stop trying to make every one of my posts about who I am going to vote for.

    I will say it right now - I consider such comment off topic to this post.

    And if that is all you have to say, then to me you have nothing to say about THIS POST.

    [ Parent ]

    My comnent was too harsh Saul (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    But in every one of my posts it is inevitable that I am asked "why vote for Obama?" I am declaring that question off topic in this post.

    [ Parent ]
    Annoying (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    The image I'm getting of Obama is that there are a bunch of people pulling strings.
    Obama appears to be a conglomerate.

    Your comment, "Thank Gawd for George Bush should be the Dem pol motto. Without him they would be nowhere" - reminds me of the Lenny Bruce "Masked Man" routine - wherein the Lone Ranger attributes the existence of his career to the thriving of pestilence and disease.

    But if Obama is counting on the fear of George to carry him through, he may be in for the same fate as Gore and Kerry.

    People pulling strings (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    Actually, I'm getting the opposite impression.

    During the primary, Obama largely stuck to speeches and teleprompters.  Now, we're seeing more of him speaking candidly and answering questions.

    I think the Obama we are seeing now is the real Obama.  The one we saw during the primary was a fabrication, with others pulling strings and writing speeches, and wielding the magic wand of marketing.  The marketing was absolutely the best money could buy and the media was dazzled and complicit.

    Now we've got a bit of a lull between the primary and the general, and many of the experts may be somewhat burned out, taking a breather, getting vacations and such, and the whole campaign is not at the top of its game at the moment.  Obama is more on his own right now.

    The Obama campaign saw the primary as being the real race, the one that would be more difficult to win, IMHO.  Once the nomination was secured, they figure he's pretty much a shoe-in.  So that's why I think we're seeing more of the true Obama now.  

    I really think we've been had.

    I've had that sense about the Obama campaign for months now, and I'm still not sure and I've remained as optimistic as possible, hoping for the best, but the things we've seen in the past month seem to confirm my suspicions.

    Now I worry most about the fact that there are so many similarities between neoliberals and neoconservatives.  The one thing that makes me doubt myself is that it's hard to believe that Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, and Dean could be duped so easily.  So I really hope I'm wrong about Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    i went looking for bruce. (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    i listened to him and now pryor. thanks for the idea. pryor, carlin, bruce! we need them now.

    [ Parent ]
    They were looking for (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    greatness, and all they got is mediocre, mediocre in a different and improved package.  

    Do they know the difference? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    Is mediocre the new "greatness?"
    I went looking for instant gratification and all I got was this Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I have heard people for Obama say (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    "Well, at least he will make nice and get something accomplished rather than just fight each other". I think they got that one right. He will become one of 'them'. BUT, I have heard so many more Democrats say they do not understand why Democrats don't just defend their positions and stand up for those ideals.They wonder why we always give in. So there is agreement between the parties. The Dems cave and the GOP gets their way. They do not even need to be the majority party.

    Us Democrats try and elect representatives of our own ideals and with hope and we are usually disappointed. That is when the 'change' takes place. When the one we elect change to another position.

    The right always (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    determines the agenda.  None of the Dem candidates had the cojones to move to the left or lead the people to the left.  

    [ Parent ]
    This pretty much sums up the entire problem (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Stellaa.

    When, oh when, will the left determine the agenda in this country? When, oh when, will there be a leader willing to take us there?


    [ Parent ]

    When? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by wmr on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    When the media actively search out the facts, encourage public discussion and dissent, and no longer serve only the corporate elite.

    [ Parent ]
    The ability to do this (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by BernieO on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    was supposed to be Obama's great talent. He always talked about how important it was for a leader to inspire people to get them to support your positions and he surely has the charisma and eloquence to do this. Instead he is doing just the opposite - or just doesn't really have any clear objectives besides getting elected.

    [ Parent ]
    He is his own Dick Morris (5.00 / 12) (#38)
    by nell on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    Obama is his own Dick Morris. Remember how divisive and polarizing the Clintons were and are for fighting back against the Republicans? Obama and his campaign repeatedly said that the Clintons are what was wrong in the 1990s, they made politics too divisive. He always made it seem like Dems and Republicans shared equal blame, which is just pure BS. But I truly think he believed that, which is why his recent flips and flops are not surprising at all.

    And as a Hillary supporter who has been trying to warn people that he is nothing different and that he will not be any sort of bastion of progressive ideals, all I can say is "Suckers!" and "I told you so." THIS is what happens when you actually believe a politician to be hope and change when he has no record to back it up. He said it, you believed it without any sort of proof. Obama has no core principles, no core ideology, to which he is wedded. Everything is seen as a matter of political expedience ONLY, there is nothing that he will stand for because it is right, and only because it is right. Now we will all suffer the consequences.

    I agree that this one will be tough for Obama to lose because it is a Dem year and McCain is running a pathetic campaign, but I, for one, am not going to help McCain-lite get to the White House. He will have to do it without me.

    I am all too aware that there was another brilliant politician we could have had who may not have been as fresh as hopeiness and changeiness, but when she said she would fight for me, I know she will fight for me. You know how I know? Because she has a record, because she stood for something, because she has core principles and lines that cannot be crossed. Can we have Hillary back?

    I am reminded (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST
    of what Barney Frank said about fighting the battles of the 90s.

    [ Parent ]
    Barney Frank speaks for me (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    That was a truly great statement and highlights the entire issue so well.

    I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

    Many of the battles of the 60s through 90s are battles that still NEED to be fought today. Unfortunately, it seems that Obama truly meant what he said about being unwilling to fight those battles and in some instances such as choice he seems willing to adopt some of the language and positions of the opposition.

    I think Obama will stand firm in his support of Bush and the Republicans position on FISA (aka Bush Coverup and Elimination of Rights Bill) regardless of supporter opposition. I think Obama will stand firm in expanding the faith based initiative program. I strongly oppose both.

    The question remains what battles will Obama and the New Democratic Party fight on positions that I favor. Positions that I use to think were core values of the Democratic Party and now seem to be easily discarded.

    [ Parent ]

    what battles (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    will the New Democratic Party fight for?

    Re-election in 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for that link andgarden (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by DFLer on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    Obama's antipathy to partisan battles of the 90s and the 60s was the first thing that turned me off to him as a candidate....pi$$ed me off is more accurate.

    I felt that 1. Denigrating the 60s strife was an insult to those who sacrificed life and limb in those struggles and 2. Did he really think that non-partisan nice-ness strategies would really overcome the IMMENSE power of those opposing progressive reforms...as if the powers-that-be would just hand things over without a battle.

    [ Parent ]

    Bamboozled suckers. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Chat in my mechanic's waiting room: Inexperienced, (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    says things and changes, what does he stand for--all about Obama. And, believe me, no mention of FISA. Public financing, yes. I did not raise issues...mostly just listened.

    Northern NJ location, mid-week, 3 guys and me: small business owner guy, working class guy, retiree in polo shirt guy, and me. All the business owners are hurting big time from the economic downturn and high prices. Retiree is parking his RV in a camping area in eastern PA for the summer instead of doing any traveling in it.

    Hardly dispositive, but interesting. Of course, NJ went for Hillary, so maybe people just haven't "come around" yet.

    No one wants more of BushCo Republicanism, btw.

    Small-business owners, white guys (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    can turn out to be a sizeable and surprisingly powerful group, somewhat sort of networked (through chambers of commerce, other business associations, etc.) in my state.  And perhaps more widely.  Many pollsters and political analysts have said, repeatedly since early primaries, that it's the midlife-to-older white guys that will decide this election -- not the midlife-to-older white women who so fascinate the media but have been much more equally split between candidates.

    The guys don't like their Bush Republicanism anymore, but that doesn't mean they'll turn Dem -- if McCain gets better at defining a message for them and getting it across.  And with the influx of top campaign management to him this week that knew how to do it before, they might do it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Just to echo a bit (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    what cmugirl says upthread, I think it's a mistake to see Obama's flip flops in his move to the center as "caving in" to the Republicans.

    "Caving in" to another party has the clear implication that one is giving up something one very much wants out of fear of consequences.

    Yet the deep truth about Obama appears to be that he has never had a firm commitment about any of these issues. Why should he hold firm on FISA, or Iraq, or campaign finance reform, or late term abortion, or NAFTA, when he has never had strong convictions on any of these issues?

    The story of Obama's political life is that he doesn't hold any values deeply enough that sharply opposing values offend him. That is the true and inescapable moral to be drawn from his attendance for 20 years at TUCC. Values, for Obama, would appear to be fungible; chips at the poker game of political power.

    BTD's recommendation that Obama should hold firm and not cave to the Republicans can at best be understood, therefore, as a strictly political strategy for Obama. Obama is, at base, motivated only by such considerations. If indeed one can make the case to Obama and his campaign that he would be held in higher regard if he seemed to have "firm principles", then I expect that he will suddenly show that he has "firm principles". If that case can't be made to seem compelling, then he won't.

    And this really is a way in which I think Obama is unlike any other major Democratic politician I can remember. I'm absolutely sure that Hillary (as Bill before her -- demonstrated by his fighting Newt Gingrich) has very strong basic values that she wants to fight for. She and other Democratic politicians will compromise on some issues, and "act like pols", but they always bear in mind the need to achieve more basic goals. While different politicians reckon the consequences differently, the basic calculation is typically: what do we have to do politically to attain what we most value in terms of policy?

    But in Obama, I see nothing like this. Everything appears to be expendable. Political consequences drive every decision. He'll compromise if that would seem to make him more popular. He'll hold firm if that would seem to make him more popular.

    I can't see a single major issue on which he's take a stand, or flip flopped, that can't be explained by that calculus.

    You got it (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    The point of my post:

    BTD's recommendation that Obama should hold firm and not cave to the Republicans can at best be understood, therefore, as a strictly political strategy for Obama. Obama is, at base, motivated only by such considerations. If indeed one can make the case to Obama and his campaign that he would be held in higher regard if he seemed to have "firm principles", then I expect that he will suddenly show that he has "firm principles". If that case can't be made to seem compelling, then he won't.

    Indeed, not for the first time have I written this about Democrats. This is a 5 year theme for me.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure exactly what you are (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    agreeing with when you say this.

    In a neighboring comment, I make the point that firmness of conviction is probably almost impossible to fake.

    Point being, it's not sufficient to tell a politician like Obama that he will be rewarded politically if he stays firm. This gives him no guidance, because he can't know what to "stay firm" on, and what to compromise (which is always required in politics on some issues).

    You see, I simply don't believe that Obama in his heart of hearts has any real strong convictions.

    Faking conviction on principles strikes me as analogous to the argument a number of economists made against central planning, as in the Soviet Union: that it could succeed at all only by mimicking prices set in market economies.

    Likewise one can't know what to compromise on in politics, and what to hold firmly to, without having either a model to follow or one's own true convictions.

    And the President, being at the very top of the political power structure, and in a unique position of power, can't have another politician on which to model his own behavior. He has only his own convictions, if any.

    And I'm simply not persuaded that Obama owns any strong convictions.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because you write it (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    does not make it true.

    For example, on faking convictions, Ronald Reagan passed the then largest tax increase in history in 1983. But he faked his convictions pretty well.

    I do not know what Obama's strongest convictions are but then I do not believe in your theory of "pols with strong convictions."

    As for what you got right, I quoted it EXACTLY. I do not understand your confusion.

    [ Parent ]

    Just to add a bit (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    to my point.

    I think it's very hard to convince someone who doesn't have firm convictions that holding to them firmly is a good political strategy, and will be rewarded in popularity.

    They themselves, clearly, don't have the instinctive moral sense that it is admirable, otherwise they would be different people. No doubt their polls and focus groups show in impressive numbers that on a any number of issues it's better to go with the other side than it is to stick to the policies their side has embraced. While polls and focus groups may say that the public in general prefers "strong" politicians, in any given case it's hardly as if holding firm would seem to be the better political tactic, because the poll numbers would tell against it.

    Where does one hold firm? Where does one compromise? Those questions are mostly unanswerable if you calculate your actions from polls and focus groups.

    In the end, the only effective way to show firmness of conviction is to possess those firm convictions. Firmness of convictions is, like sincerity, very, very difficult to fake.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    BTD's recommendation that Obama should hold firm and not cave to the Republicans can at best be understood, therefore, as a strictly political strategy for Obama. Obama is, at base, motivated only by such considerations.

    So, in a nutshell, Obama has to be held to progressive values via threat of political cost. Of course. But here's the problem:  progressives themselves have undermined our ability to obtain this from him politically by completely enabling his capitulation on progressive issues. There is no true political fallout for him on this from progressives. They rationalize away every one of his throwaways to republicans and independents, and resort to faith-based feelings that he will revert to a progressive once he's in the White House. I feel that progressives are well and truly screwed.


    [ Parent ]

    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pols who do tradeoffs (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    are different -- the pols you note who "caved" but for the sake of winning on other issues that they saw (much as some of us may have disagreed on their priorities) as closer to their firm principles and goals.

    So if Obama is "caving" on some issues as a tradeoff for others, fine -- but then, as you say, what are his firm principles and goals for which he is giving up FISA, public financing, Roe v. Wade, etc.?  

    [ Parent ]

    Another perspective (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:36:14 AM EST
    Granted, this is from the London Times, but has an interesting perspective on the flip-flops.

    LINK

    I  suspect that all this worries Mr Obama not at all. The louder the Left complains, the deeper the satisfaction at Obama headquarters.

    Can you remember a time in, say the past 100 years, when the American people have rejected a presidential candidate because they thought that he was insufficiently left-wing? As for conservatives, they should be cheering Mr Obama, not complaining.

    The Left had hoped that 2008 would be a watershed election, a long-awaited counterblast to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994. And if there were ever a time when the country seemed ready to move left this was surely it. Democrats have a 20-percentage-point lead in opinion polls; those same polls show that almost fourfifths of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. The Republican Party today has all the appeal of a communicable disease.

    And yet, on the issues, as Mr Obama understands, people are not so radical. On domestic prosecution of the War on Terror, on cultural issues such as guns and the death penalty, on religion's role in public life, perhaps even on trade and free markets, there is little evidence that Americans are ready to abandon their beliefs.

    This is another example of how smart the Obama campaign is. They understand that the biggest impediment to an Obama presidency is lingering doubt about whether their man is a straight-down-the-middle American. Despite having a couple of bestsellers to his name, he is still something of a blank page to most voters, one on which his opponents are trying to doodle all kinds of unflattering portraits of an extremist.

    So he is spending these dog days of summer reassuring interested but nervous voters that he is as American as the Fourth of July. And he is doing something else besides - looking ahead to his possible presidency.



    Obama's flips toward the center/right (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    will not, imo, help him win Independent or Republican voters.  It will make him look opportunistic and unreliable to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Tell that to John Kerry (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:42:22 AM EST
    Ridiculous article. I assure you Obama is not pleased being called a flip flopper.

    Look at the reaction to the Iraq flip flop story.

    [ Parent ]

    "The louder the Left complains, (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    the deeper the satisfaction at Obama headquarters."  

    I doubt Obama's pleased to be called a flip flopper, but if he's trying to reassure Middle America that he's mainstream, it helps that us lefties are howling about him not being one of us after all.


    [ Parent ]

    Dream on (none / 0) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Swift Boat Meme Might Be (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    Obama's got nothing new ...??

    HOWEVER, I don't see ANYTHING new about catering to the fascist defined 'middle', 'bipartisan', 'independent', 'swing' and 'center' ...

    BTD has hit upon something many in blog-o-topia have been saying (in my words )

    Dems NEED to Fight For Dem values, NOT quiver and snivel and whimper towards a fake ass 'center' defined by the fascists, for the fascists, of the fascists.  

    Haven't we had enough of that 'strategy' since 1980?

    Obama has too often been, for me, someone whose name I'll check off and NOTHING more. (HRC and Richardson and Edwards ... too)

    I've got better things to do than spend money and time on someone selling me out with the promise that they'll take everything off the table once elected ...

    oops? did I screw that up?

    Where's Howard?

    rmm.

    In Hawaii, the elected Democrats (none / 0) (#187)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    who stood up for equal rights for gay citizens were destroyed.  They were targeted and replaced by Catholic Church funded groups that killed their political careers.  It was swift, merciless and effective.  The result is that last year, the Senate Committee that looked at civil unions had to "quiver and snivel and whimper" their way out of granting civil unions.  The otherwise strong, ethical, reasonable Rep. Tommy Waters quickly tabled the issue so it couldn't come up again.  This after thousands of people testifying about the need for equal rights, including strong, sensible demands, clear, reasonable arguments for equality, and parents who practically begged and pleaded on behalf of their children.

    Make fun of Obama and criticize him if you like, but please do not believe that a strong Dem standing up for our values and issues can win the presidency.


    [ Parent ]

    Amazing! (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST
    Make fun of Obama and criticize him if you like, but please do not believe that a strong Dem standing up for our values and issues can win the presidency.

    This could have been taken right out of a centrism-arguing Clinton's mouth. I thought the rejection of this philosophy was what set Obama apart from Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Great post, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    From the primary, I really thought Obama was a Democrat with some political courage for once.  How clueless that conclusion feels now.

    By the way, did Obama actually flip-flop on Iraq?  His supporters are claiming no, but frankly, the narrative from the last couple weeks is just too powerful.  Every day brings a new surrender to the GOP on something, and we're supposed to believe that Obama is holding firm on Iraq and will definitely muster the political courage to end the war?  Yeah right.

    He did not (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    but his use of the word "refine" was "inartful." And given the flip flopper narrative taking hold, or "move to the center" to put it more charitably, it seemed inevitable to me that the statement would be interpreted as such.

    Josh Marshall's bleatings on this are rather disingenuous on the point.

    [ Parent ]

    Well from the department of friends Obama (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    doesn't need, Max Baucus:

    "We need to find a responsible way out, but the key word is `responsible,' " Mr. Baucus said. "We can't just cut and run."



    [ Parent ]
    "Cut and run". wasn't that (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    a repub. talking point?

    [ Parent ]
    And isn't our candidate trying to get VOTES (none / 0) (#180)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    from Republicans?

    I think some TL commenters should apply the tried and true way to see if something is an "ism" to what the campaign has to do right now.

    Pretend Hillary won and try to view her or her surrogates saying something like "cut and run" and see what you have to say about it.  I think these comments would be full of stuff like:

    1. She's brilliantly using their own language to connect with centrists, Reagan Dems and even right wingers.
    2. She doesn't really believe this stuff, she just has to say it.
    3. She has to look tough because as a woman she's more easily portrayed as weak.

    <flame suit on, go ahead and blast away about what Hillary would NEVER say and do, even if she were the nominee>


    [ Parent ]
    You know what (none / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    I think Obama was trying to walk back his Iraq commitment, but reconsidered when the press coverage became embarrassing.

    Perhaps that lesson will be applied elsewhere. . .

    [ Parent ]

    He nay have been trying to have it both ways (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    Like he clearly did on late term abortion.

     

    [ Parent ]

    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    he very clearly tried to have it both ways on faith-based initiatives too, with that anonymous campaign advisor who apparently made up the idea there would be discrimination in hiring out of nowhere.

    I guess the classic trick of politics is getting people on both sides of the issue to think you agree with them both.  It's troubling watching people on your own side taking the bait, though.

    [ Parent ]

    If you want to read his (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    similar behavior at Harvard, please refer to comment #14/harvard.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    Frankly, if he wants to change his position, the obvious best time would be after he gets done visiting Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans vs Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Prabhata on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    Republicans honor their base.  They begin with their base and give tiny morsels to the center (Bush was a compassionate conservative).  The Democrats believe that the base (the left) will vote Democratic because there is no where else to go and don't care about their base.  I don't think they know who is in their base. I think Noam Chumsky is right.  There is little difference between the parties.  Pelosi is supposed to be way, way to the left, but she's passed the FISA bill with all the bells and whistles that Bush wanted. PUMA!

    Funny (none / 0) (#178)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:55:25 AM EST
    that some HRC supporters have lately started discovering the wisdom of Noam Chomsky. Didn't Chomsky belong to the "egg head" and "elitist" part of the democratic base that many of HRC's supporters gleefully kick "under the bus"? :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Funny, that some people will say (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    anything to stereotype Clinton supporters.  Hello Strawman, you are my friend.

    I've long read and moderately admired, yet occasionally been critical of, Chomsky.  And yet was a Clinton supporter.

    The objection is not to Chomsksy, but to the slavish adoration of his every word.  The absence of applying any critical faculty to his work only mirrors the same in regard to Obama by many (but not all) of his supporters.  And is equally frightening and objectionable.

    [ Parent ]

    Flip-Flop Free Zone (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by salmonrising on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    For all any of us knows, Obama may be channeling his inner Morris. Long ago I said if Obama became president he would make Bill 'Triangulator" Clinton look like a flaming liberal. So far, I feel justified in that assessment. (BTW, I will be happy if I turn out to be wrong.)

    The only thing I am absolutely POSITIVE Obama will not flip flop on is his plan to install a basketball court at the White House. For that he is evidently channeling his inner Michael Jordan.

    The big question about the Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    remains, for me:  Why don't they use the power that they have?


    I don't think they have power to make change yet. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    There are still many seats in Congress that we can win this fall, unless the FISA bill is stalled and we, um, have an unfortunate terrorist attack that can conveniently be used to make it look like the Dems in Congress were complicit by not extending the governments spying abilities.  Sen. Gordon Smith is a good example.  He'll be fired for Bush rubber stamping, or he'll win because Portland has been destroyed by a dirty bomb dropped by boat downtown in the park where Obama's big 70,000 strong rally/concert occurred.

    I'd like to fire him.  And I'd like our Dems to stand up for the Constitution.  So far I can't see a way to have both.  And of course I don't want to see Americans die because our government is complicit in terrorism to extend their political deathgrip on us.


    [ Parent ]

    Why is this shocking? (4.75 / 12) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    Obama has always praised Repbulicans and touted how he supposedly wanted to "work across the aisle". What he is doing now, I think, is more true to what he really believes. What should be shocking is that he convinced the far left that he was actually liberal.

    JMO

    I agree with your point. (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    Since his positions have changed, he is either pandering now or he was pandering then. Most of his supporters want to believe that he is pandering now, and his most avid supporters want to believe its all part of some brilliant strategy to win the WH and swing back left.

      I think he was pandering then, knowing that he had to appear left, or at least center-left, in order to win the primaries. I think what we are seeing now is more in line with what he really believes, but couldn't say during the primaries. Thus his early emphasis on "hope" and "change" and not on issues then.

    [ Parent ]

    I am wondering what you are referencing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:05:47 AM EST
    as to shock. Pols are pols is something you may have read here.

    And Dem pols generally are worse at politics thant Republican pols.

    Thank Gawd for George Bush should be the Dem pol motto. Without him they would be nowhere.  

    [ Parent ]

    "Shock" (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    I was referring to the NYT editorial you cited, whereby they said:

    We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

    The bolded statement implies that they really are shocked.  My point was that folks in the media are starting wake up and say "Gosh, what happened?"  instead of saying, "Gee, this is who this guy was all along."  Obama has never been any liberal.

    Thank Gawd for George Bush should be the Dem pol motto. Without him they would be nowhere.

    I agree completely. (although I'm confused by the 2 rating).

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    I don't buy your reasoning at all. Striking it is. For precisely the reasons the Times' editorial states.

    It is what makes his craven flip flops so DAMAGING. He claimed to be so much more.

    Clinton supporters have long argued, rightly, that Clinton did not argue she would change politics, but that she would fight for you.

    IT is because Obama claimed so much for his campaign that the cravennesss now is particularly damaging.

    [ Parent ]

    I find it hard to believe that the New York (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    Times editorial board, or any savvy political observer believed Obama's "change" rhetoric for even one second. I tire of this Claude Raines schtick.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you!! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:26:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think you miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    The NYTimes has its own views on issues and is using the devices it has to have Obama align with its own views.

    They are not playing Claude Rains at all.

    I am surprised most of you are missing it.

    You are too steeped in what happened to Hillary it seems to me to think past it.

    At this point, none of you seem interested in issues either. In your own ways, you have become the mirror images of the Obamabots - you do not seem to care about the issues either.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't really understand your criticism (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    in the last two paragraphs. I don't see what this has to do with Clinton. Anyway, I'll just say that I give the Times board a little more credit for brains then you do, and a little less credit for scruples then you do.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually you give them no credit for brains (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    as far as I can tell.

    But I attirbute it to the fact that you think they do not care about influencing Obama on the issues. I wrote:

    The NYTimes has its own views on issues and is using the devices it has to have Obama align with its own views.

    My reaction in the last grafs is based on My belief that you and others seem to have no scruples on the question of influencing Obama on the issues. Either you do not care about the issues, or you think there is nothing to be done and you simply will not vote for him and be done with it.

    In any event, you certainly did not address my argument as to what the Times Ed Page was trying to do.

    In essence, some of you seem to just want to complain about why people are voting for Obama and seem to have no interest whatsoever in exploring whether there is any way to influence Obama.

    You folks can do what you want but it seems pretty despotic to demand everyone do what you are doing. It is the mirror image of the "fall in line" line I get from Obamabots.

    I choose to not follow either path suggested.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm voting for Obama. But no I don't believe (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    there is any way to influence a politician. If you want a politician who will support some of the same goals that you do, you find one who has a record of doing that, vote for them/work for them and hope that once they are elected they will continue in roughly the same path as before.

    Expecting a politican who does not share many of the same goals that you do to change after the electon because you send him some tough letters is a silly waste of time.

    [ Parent ]

    That is certtainly an admiring view of pols (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    That they have beliefs that they stick to.

    Of course you and I have diametrically opposing views of politicians.

    I am NOT shocked to discover there is gambling going on - to wit, that pols are about getting elected and reelected and adjust their views accordingly.

    You make "writing letters" the synonym for loud persistent criticism that effects a pol's public image - the public image that is central to a pol's chances of getting elected.

    I think you are wrong. I think it is funny that most of you think NOT voting for Obama in November will have more of an effect on him than ripping him.

    I think it is the opposite.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, if the Baby Boom geners (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    are going to be the key bloc this election year (as one polster has it), then I know a lot of them who are not voting top of the ticket this year. It will send a strong message...knowing he has your vote, sends a message that you are ok with anything he or mostly anything he does. He doesn't have to win you over or support your issues. By the way, his issues don't have to always be in align with mine, but he has lied, cheated and has shown lack of integrity in this cycle way beyond what is acceptable to me.

    [ Parent ]
    truth be told, the block of dems not (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    voting for obama may very well include latinos, jewish voters, boomers, blue collar workers, and those who value the constitution. i include myself in those who value the constitution.

    [ Parent ]
    But if, in your view, all that matters (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    to all pols is getting elected, then refusing to vote for that pol unless they support your issue is no less effective than criticizing them for not supporting your issue. In fact, criticizing them, but still promising them that you will vote for them nevertheless, is much less effective than clearly stating that you will not vote for them, unless they support your viewpoint. If all they fear is the loss of your vote, then your vote is clearly the most effective bargaining tool.

      Personally, I think that some politicians have core beliefs beyond getting elected that they will support no matter what. Senator Church was one of those politicians. Senator Obama, however, seems to fit to a tee your more negative view of what all pols are like.

    [ Parent ]

    Primaries (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Notice my use of the word "hope". I (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    don't admire many politicians. And even if I do, there isn't a one of them that I would implicitly trust.

    And no, I don't think not voting for Obama is particularly more effective then criticism.

    I don't see much of anything at this point that would be effective.

    [ Parent ]

    As you say, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    "In essence, some of you seem to just want to complain about why people are voting for Obama and seem to have no interest whatsoever in exploring whether there is any way to influence Obama." Other than what has been mentioned, the usual email, phone calls, etc. and, as it appears articles of the NYT ilk does nothing to influence Obama in any way, how would you propose addressing your issues of inconsistencies in his policies. Mine is to not vote for him. Nothing else, I believe, is going to work. I do agree that some of us are mirror images of the "Obamabots" however, we have not been taken over, as they seem to be, by the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

    [ Parent ]
    While I share your general pessimism (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    I do think the thousands of signatures on letters to Obama complaining about his FISA flip at least led him to try to explain himself on his web site. The explanation was not satisfactory, and as BTD and others have pointed out, underestimates our knowledge of the issues. I still hold out hope that if BTD and others with substantive knowledge of the current FISA bill, the amendments and the significance of same respond to Obama at his web site in the thousands, perhaps we can move him.  Note:  The Gallup poll has moved so close this week that pundits are all saying the polls are a dead heat -- 46 Obama & 44 McCain.  Too close for comfort for Obama, I would think. Perhaps his flips to the right are indeed hurting him -- & there's some hope for moving him back toward stances he took during the campaign -- whatever his core beliefs or lack thereof.

    [ Parent ]
    See my response (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    to tigercourse.

    [ Parent ]
    I am familiar with politics (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:07:35 AM EST
    and pols and what it takes to win elections. Perhaps being called names does not bother you, but it bothers me and I try to teach my children better than that. To me, as he is running now, he is no different than McCain. McCain at least courts my vote....I want a potus who fights for this country not himself. Listening to his surrogates is frightening.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    Did Obama call you a name? Or do you mean me? What name did I call you?

    BTW, have you ever called Obama any names? What do your children think of that, if you do?

    Sanctimony is not a winning way with me zfran. Perhaps someone else will find it more appealing.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not sanctimoneous, (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    however, his campaign called me a racist, something I certainly am not. You can look through my posts and see if I called Obama or anyone else any names. I don't like that behavor. When I just used the term "Obamabots" I believe it was in quotes from your answer to me. I don't call anyone names, nor do I allow (within my household for anyone to call anyone else names). We don't cuss in my house either. I don't believe in lying either. Call me a goody-two shoes if you must, (I have many faults) but I believe we have a myriad of words to use and we should use them wisely. I appreciate that you challenge many here and I agree with you sometimes. But I believe I've been respectful, altho' o/t sometimes.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (