home

"Moving To The Middle" Garners Obama Zero Votes

What Bowers Said:

According to Rasmussen, that CW is mirrored by the shifting perceptions of the general public, who view Obama as less liberal than they did one month ago. . . . So, now that Obama is perceived as moving to the center, while McCain is still perceived as conservative, Obama's poll numbers should improve, right? Wrong. According to the daily tracking poll from the same polling firm, Rasmussen, the campaign has not changed at all as a result of Obama being perceived as less liberal.

I will go one step further. Ras does not publish crosstabs, but I would bet dollars to donuts that most of the folks who now perceive Obama as "less liberal" are liberals themselves. It seems to me all Obama has accomplished with his "move to the middle" is anger the Dem base, created a "flip flopper" meme and changed the terms of the debate to one where the Dem position is the "Far Left" one. So Obama has ceded important ground on issues and gotten no help at all (indeed, it likely will hurt him in the longer run) politically. Hell of a move there Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< D-Day for FISA Capitulation | Just Say No to O'Neill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Wasn't Kerry perceived as doing (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    exactly the same thing in 2004, to his detriment?
    No one wants a semi-demi-Republican, if they can get the real thing.

    Hemi-semi-demiquaver. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Absolutely priceless analysis (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    People around me are seeing McCain in a more favorable light for exactly the reason you outline here.  I wish I didn't feel like this whole white house campaign season on the left  wasn't such a mess, but I still do and it doesn't seem like the feeling is going away anytime soon.

    Parent
    The key statement ... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    ....is that liberals themselves are realizing he's not liberal. Centrists themselves will see Obama as liberal no matter what he says:

    Obama is a black anti-war law professor who attended a militantly left wing church.

    25 words or less.  The only peolpe that are saying he's more centrist are the ones who are disappointed in his jerk to the right on certain pet issues.

    Parent

    Yes, that's right. He's redefining (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    the political landscape (as promised), so that anything to the left of Reagan is "ultra-liberal".

    Parent
    the shift in the perception of ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    ...political philosophy might be a harbinger of slacking support on the left and the liberal side of the ideological divide.

    it doesn't mean that Obama picks up extra votes at all.

    Parent

    Our local newspaper has (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    been writing about all of the neocons who are now in Obama's camp supporting his "centrist" positions. People like Andrew Sullivan and Douglas Kmeic (Pepperdine right winger all the way) are examples.  They seem positively giddy that someone "reasonable" is likely to win.  I have two thoughts: either they think he will roll over more quickly than Hillary would have, or they want someone to "clean up the Bush mess" so they can go back to small government, low taxes and powerful military.  None quoted in these articles had changed their basic philosophy, just angry that Bush had strayed so far from Ronald Reagan.  Yikes, they want Reagan again???

    Parent
    Interesting invocation of Strauss. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    In that Platonic form, Kerry was a man of silver and Bush a man of gold.  he got to lie and contradict and cheat and steal.  kerry had to be honourable and comically consistent.  In the media narrtive today you have Obama as the man of gold and McCain as the man of silver.  He's a perfect vehicle for noble lies like these two:

    "Even though we are bombing your Karachi hovels, we are not racists--see, our leader is a black man."

    "America is a bestest most genrous nation on earth. See, we bear no ill will. our leader from a community that was once a dispised minority of slaves.  Everyone is now equal and free."

    Obama had licence to pander to the left in the primary and licence to pander to the right in the general, and the media egg it on, because he can embody all the great stories that America likes to comfort itself with.

    Parent

    double problem for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    It's worse than Obama simply copying Kerry moving right in 2004.  Obama claimed to be a "different politician" - not the Washington establishment variety (that promoted him from the gitgo.)

    imho - it's less about Obama's new rightward positions and more about his character.
    Can we trust him?, etc
    Hell no!
    lol

    Parent

    Well, his MO seems not to (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    have changed since Harvard (and I suspect before). Isn't everyone supposed to "gravitate" to him and just be content that his decisions "are best?"

    Harvard

    Yep, it's just the Obamameter again (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    that his classmates joked about, because of Obama's kissing up to profs -- but now it's no joke that the pointer is swinging so far to the right, because he's kissing up to the corporate funding sources.

    Parent
    zfran....and now is the time to inundate the (4.33 / 6) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    SD's, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Emmanuel, etc with letters telling them to wake the f_ _k up!!  We cannot win with obama; unless they don't want to win the WH.

    Parent
    I agree, however, I think they (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    know and feel they can "control him" in the w.h. Someone said today that congress' poll numbers are in the single digits. Obviously, they don't care. The last time I called anyone over there, I was referred to their voice mail, which probably erases everthing after you hang up. But, it issomething to do!


    Parent
    www.LobbyDelegates.com (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    They know he can't win (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    They just want his money.  Unfortunately it's about that simple.

    Problem is, I have the feeling his well is going to start drying up, maybe sooner rather than later.

    Parent

    From what I have read (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by BernieO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    it already has. His peak came back in February. Now he is going to the regular sources because he is not raising that much on the internet. If you think about it, that well was bound to run dry. How much more money would these average Joe's be able to afford especially in this economy. But i makes for a good story so the media does not want to admit it is not still viable.

    Parent
    Fundraising (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    For May, Obama - the great fundraiser, and McCain - who was broke a year ago, were virtually tied in fundraising.

    "Obama received $21.9 million in contributions -- a substantial drop from April, when he raised $30.7 million. It was an especially steep decline from February and March, when he raised $55.4 million and $41.3 million, respectively.

    ...

    McCain, by contrast, has shown steady increases month by month, raising $21.2 million in May, $3 million more than his previous high in April. McCain also raised $2.2 million to handle legal issues for the general election."

    LINK

    Parent

    They also want his donor and supporter base (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sassysenora on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    A lot of it is money but some of it is wanting the names of his supporters so they can use them in GOTV (both in getting them to vote and to volunteer for GOTV drives).

    I think they want Obama because (1) they think he'll get a lot of new voters to vote in 2008 and (2) he'll energize the base (i.e., people who have voted Dem before but who aren't reliable voters).

    They only care about downticket elections. If Obama gets a lot of Dems to vote and esp if he can bring in a lot of new voters, downticket Dems will win. I don't think they care if Obama wins or not. It may be better for them if he loses because then they can blame McCain and the Republicans if they don't do much.

    Does anyone know about contributions to downticket Dems, the DSCC, or the DCCC? I got an email from the DSCC saying that they'd raised around $3.5 million last quarter. Is that more than usual for this quarter in the cycle?

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    There are other nuggets in those numbers too.  Here's Nate Silver on the same poll, which some response to Bowers:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/has-obama-won-center.html

    Basically: the net margin hasn't changed in either direction, but (1) Obama is now perceived as less "liberal" and (2) McCain is now seen as more conservative than he otherwise would.  So even if no one's mind was changed, this has had the effect, in essence, of moving the first down line into McCain's territory.  He now has to explain why he's not "too conservative" to win, and likewise will have a harder time painting Obama as a liberal.

    Nate Silver is full of it (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    Voting preference is the key.

    And Silver does not have the crosstabs so he really is just doing his typical pro-Obama spin.

    Parent

    Then you have not been paying attention (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    Nate Silver is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    Silver himself is an Obama supporter.  His analysis has, so far, been better than anyone else's though.  Notably, he's much less of a blowhard than a lot of the bloggers.  He'll admit to and point out carefully what we don't know.

    In this case, there's just not enough polling (literally: one Rasmussen poll) to make the kind of definitive statement we see at the top.  And of course the poll itself is more ambiguous than "Obama bad, McCain good".  Silver cops to all of this.  Bowers and BTD, kinda not.

    Parent

    in your opinion (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    Silver's analysis is pretty pedestrian generally at best.

    When he puts his pro-Obama hat on, it is often offensive.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 13) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    What is the benefit of being perceived as less liberal, if it doesn't result in any actual gain in votes?

    The problem with the DLC mentality (move two inches to the left of the Republican, and therefore you get everyone to the left of you) is that it neglects to consider the downside.  That is what this post is about.

    Not only can you most certainly lose votes from your base by moving too far in the wrong direction, but you also lose energy and activism from the people most willing to supply it.

    I think the most common category error made by Obama supporters is that they assume any Democrat who won't vote for Obama is either (1) racist, or (2) a bitter Hillary supporter upset that she lost.  (There are, of course, some who consider the two categories to be the same.)  What they miss, I assume because they are perfectly happy with Obama's positions on the issues, is that there very much is an ideological component to the opposition.

    Some people couldn't give a fig about Hillary but simply don't think Obama is a very good Democrat.  And of the "bitter" Hillary supporters, there are many who are bitter because they felt like Hillary was the better Democrat and would have done a better job standing up for Democratic values.  There's no doubt that Obama could win over many of these voters simply by acting more like a partisan Democrat.  Move to the right, though, and you simply confirm their beliefs.

    I do know that rejecting the DLC philosophy and encouraging candidates to avoid posturing via moves to the center used to be a central tenet of the netroots' worldview.  The FISA debate has been illuminating as far as sorting out who is still focused on issue advocacy and who is just all about the candidate.

    Parent

    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    theres 18 million angry lefties to his LEFT!

    We are supporters of the only Democrat to go before O'Reilly and stick up for Democratic values like taxation of the rich that was the reason the old days were the good old days.

    But kos and others didn't listen! They made fun of her. If they could only have listened! Now they finally see him for what he is, too late.

    Parent

    Your comment should be required (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:45:08 PM EST
    reading for all Dem leadership. It IMO accurately states what is going on within the party at this moment. I'm not hurt. I'm not grieving. I'm totally disgusted and it has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary. It has come to the point that I do not trust the nominee or the party to stand up for the issues and the values I feel are important. Where is the line in the sand that they will not cross if they are willing to vote in favor of the Bush Cover Up and Eliminating of Constitutional Rights bill? Does it even exits?  

    Parent
    Happening Now (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    And of the "bitter" Hillary supporters, there are many who are bitter because they felt like Hillary was the better Democrat and would have done a better job standing up for Democratic values.  There's no doubt that Obama could win over many of these voters simply by acting more like a partisan Democrat.  Move to the right, though, and you simply confirm their beliefs.

    A CNN poll that was out yesterday confirmed this - Obama has lost about 6% more Hillary voters in the last few weeks.

    Parent

    But there are those who don't care (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:01:53 PM EST
    if someone is a good Democrat as long as they're a good candidate, i.e., electability.

    And when he wins, then they'll change him.  Uh huh.  In conversations with other middle-aged women, we have laffed a lot about that.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by denise on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    his whole strategy from the beginning was based on the assumption that the Democratic base would vote for him no matter what, so he could afford to pursue Republicans & Independents.

    It was a fair assumption I suppose. Up until 6 months ago I said I would always vote Democratic, no matter how disappointing the candidate. What I never could have anticipated was how much I would loathe him & his supporters.

    Parent

    Only a southern white pol can (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    pull off the ideological leftiness and familiar cutural comfort that the campaign is trying to produce.

    Parent
    I didn't realize (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    Hillary was a Southern white pol.

    She managed to garner those white working-class votes without lurching to the right, now, didn't she?

    Parent

    Odly enough her Husband is. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:25:27 PM EST
    So she's an honourary one. And she wouldn't have won the same number of southern states as her old man.

    It's a brutal horrible point point i'm making and it's offensive to many liberals.  But my analogy is this.  IN teh UK teh Labour Party is run by Scots and Welsh and Northerners from Liverpool Manchester and Leeds.  They ran with Welshmen, Scots and Northern accents and lost every time.  Once they picked a nice chap with a home counties accent they held power for 10 years going on 12.

    The symbolic concession to the home counties English of selecting Blair as leader played a large part in that string of victories.  He played well in areas that Labour traditionally got wiped out in.

    in the US the dems are run by Harvardy New Englanders, Californians and  a loyal black base of voters.

    It's a recipe for disaster not to symbolically nod your head toward the area you underperform in.

    Parent

    Yes, it is offensive (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    and incorrect.

    I will never agree with you on this one. But what do I know? I just live in the United States and have for my whole life. And voted Democrat the whole time.

    In my opinion, any politician who can throw off the image of elitism and appear to care about the working class will win on election day. The one who successfully did that in the primaries this year, was Hillary. Edwards was saddled with the haircut and Breck Girl memes. Yes, I supported him before Hillary too. I thought he was the most electable, but clearly, he was not.

    It had nothing to do with where the person is from, it has to do with the PERCEPTION of whether or not that person is an elitist who does not care about the working class.

    Usually the Republicans are better at pretending they are "just regular folks," so they end up winning the White House. We Democrats had a chance to go with the winner this year, but so far it looks like we are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    You sound like a bitter Edwards supporter!

    Earlier in the campaign, I always used to remark on what a shame it was that so many Democrats were ignoring the phenomenon that the candidate with the most progressive platform was nevertheless getting the most votes from moderates and conservatives.  To me, that's a recipe for progressive success, but not enough people saw it that way.

    Parent

    yup. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    The analysis is basically sound if you look at the Dems who did win elections in the last half century.  If you cross the pond you also see the concession that Labour (Scots, Welsh and Lancastrians) made to the Southerners by giving Blair the reins.

    I'm also saying this as an outsider.  i'm not a Southern white myself.

    Parent

    In the last half century (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    Kennedy (not a southerner) and Johnson won with liberalism ascendant -- no great trick there.  After the civil rights era, Carter won in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, and Clinton won the first time because of recession + Perot's 19%, and the second time because he was a successful incumbent.

    Correlation is not causation.

    Parent

    Re JFK/LBJ: Yes, lib era, but (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    some of you seem to overlook that Kennedy famously ran as a muscular proponent of anticommunism -- especially on Fidel's Cuba.  As I say, had the internets been around back then, the left online community would have gone nuts.  As it  was, Kennedy aide and historian A Schlesinger had to quickly put out a small book explaining to the Nervous Nellies on the Left why in fact there was a difference between the two candidates and how Kennedy was in fact liberal.  Strange but true.  Oh, and Kennedy ended up governing post-BoP to end the Cold War madness.

    Hillary:  she may have been an honorary southern/rural white pol, but she also had a relatively hawkish FP posture -- to go with her prior unfortunate AUMF vote.  So, not unlike JFK in her center-right campaign positioning on FP (as these things are perceived).

    Edwards:  folks here also overlook how he governed, his one term in office, as a moderate.  It was only a year after the 04 election that he turned on Iraq and apologized.  There were several other key issues/votes where he flipped and flopped.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#180)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    I wouldn't call it a fair assumption to postulate that the online left would have been solidly pro-communist back in the day.  Maybe it's true, but it's kind of an unfortunate thing to say.

    Setting that aside, who exactly are these people that overlook Edwards' moderate voting record?  The salient point for most online Edwards supporters is that he was clearly running the most progressive campaign this year, and as a result catapulting progressive arguments into the forefront.  Whether he cast some non-progressive votes in the past, or whether he's really even that progressive in his heart, is completely beside the point, and I didn't see anyone suggest that Edwards has been staunchly liberal throughout his career.

    Parent

    Perhaps you misread my remarks (none / 0) (#188)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    about Kennedy's FP hawkishness in the campaign and the left, or are just joshin'.  No one here meant to assert or imply the problem with the left back then was any sort of pro-communism -- that's just a ridiculous interpretation, but not surprising.

    As to Edwards, it was my clear impression that many of his supporters did in fact disregard -- or were unaware of -- his much more moderate one term in office, and (the few of them) pushed all that aside to warmly embrace his rather doctrinaire liberalism-populism.

    Unfortunately in his case, being a mere one-termer with a short track record, he failed to gain much traction because too many informed Dem voters wondered about the guy and his true beliefs -- not to mention that his fairly sweeping pre-08 liberal positioning on a handful of issues just seemed too blatant and insincere.  In that sense, his flip-floppery was most definitely not beside the point.  

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#193)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    would the online left have gone nuts over Kennedy's espousal of anticommunism, unless they were pro-communism?  You perplex me.  The left had plenty of anticommunists back in the day.

    Parent
    Let me try one more time -- (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    the left in 60 would have seen Kennedy as going too far in fighting communism and beefing up the already bloated Pentagon (his tough pronouncements about Communist Cuba, his frequent Missile Gap rhetoric), not because they were pro-commie, but because they favored (rightly) a less confrontational and more live and let live approach.  Nothing in anything I've written which should suggest the left was objecting to his campaigning because they were Red.  Ridiculous ...

    Parent
    Hmmmmm. (none / 0) (#201)
    by pie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    Unfortunately in his case, being a mere one-termer with a short track record, he failed to gain much traction because too many informed Dem voters wondered about the guy and his true beliefs --

    Then you understand, of course, why many of us didn't support Obama.

    And still don't.

    Parent

    We'll certainly see. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    Not really. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    Since this can hardly be called a neutral year -- the fundamentals favor a Dem more strongly than any year other than '76.

    Regardless, given that there's no data whatsoever to back it up, your theory is inoperative.

    Parent

    Pegasus, why do you think JFK (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    (not a southerner) picked LBJ (a southerner)?  

    Parent
    For strength in the South. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    Because JFK absolutely had to have it.  But that was pre-southern strategy, and pre- solidly blue CA.  Apples and oranges compared to today.  I just included it for completeness, given Salo's completely arbitrary timeframe.

    Parent
    Edwards you mean (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    And some days I feel bad because I did not support him.

    But I really really disagree with him (and most of you) on trade.

    Parent

    That was probably one area he'd have flip flopped (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    It's not like he'd have been able to slow globalization himself.  I think he was just shouting out to industrial workers that he had their backs.

    Parent
    If one has decided (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    That its impossible to flip flop to the left (that's called being courageous enough to admit when you've been wrong of course), then Edwards is simply not a flip flopper.  At all.

    Parent
    Did you see Obama's statement yesterday (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    in St. Louis about Stella Artois/Anheuser Busch buyout offer?  He sd. it would be a shame if a foreign company took over Anheuser Busch.  

    Parent
    Please tell me you're kidding. (none / 0) (#177)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    Please?

    Parent
    Marketplace, NPR. (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    race issues, eh? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    I don't agree with what it looks like is being implied there.

    Maybe the issue is just geographic.

    Do northern intellectuals really have to work harder to prove centrist bond fides?

    Is that it?

    Parent

    He won't have a hard time (4.40 / 5) (#22)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    painting Obama as very very liberal. And of course i'm doing everything I can to make sure any readers here realize Obama is not left or liberal at all. He's an opportunistic conservative with half baked ideas. what's not to love?

    Parent
    hang on. a low score? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    That's exactly what Obama want's to be seen as up til the convention.  An opportunistic conservative with wishy washy ideas.  That way he gets to straddle the ideological center.   I'm pretty certain that this characterization of him is something that Obama is actively encouraging.

    Parent
    Did you expect anything else? (none / 0) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    You impugned the chosen one...

    Parent
    Good artice on perils for moving to the middel (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Saul on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    By Linda Feldmann
    Tue Jul 8, 4:00 AM ET

    Left lacks leverage to stop Obama's rightward tack


    Three cheers for Linda Feldmann (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Haven't read the article yet but I applaud her for using "rightward"  in her title and not using "moving to the center."

    It makes me extremely angry that adopting Republican agendas is labeled moving to the center. That just reinforces the erroneous meme that the Republican agenda represents the majority or moderate position in the political spectrum and that what use to be considered Democratic positions are out of the norm. {bangs head on desk in total frustration}

    Parent

    Yes yes YES!!! (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    We ARE the center. Bush et al. are radical right.

    Parent
    Spoke a little too soon (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    Title was great but then she changes the emphasis to moving to the center in the very first paragraph. Overall, the article stated the situation fairly IMO.

    Parent
    From the article (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    you link to:

    The liberal blogosphere has lighted up with outrage, bemoaning how the man who promised to move beyond politics as usual is, well, engaging in politics as usual. Some have vowed to refocus their energy and donations toward progressive candidates farther down the ballot. But they will still vote for Obama, not Ralph Nader, the onetime darling of the left, and certainly not Senator McCain. Not voting is also off the table, given the stakes. And so, progressive activists say, Obama is likely to get away with his rightward shift.

    Why don't we face facts here? Progressives "have no leverage" against Obama because they refuse to do the one effective thing they might do: deny him their votes.

    Democratic politicians must be put on notice that turning their backs on progressive causes -- including the preservation of Constitutional protections -- are deal breakers. Long experience has shown that nothing else succeeds.

    If progressives can't find the courage necessary to take this step, and deal with those who would label them "traitors" for supposedly betraying the Democratic Party and progressive policies, who are they to protest that Democrats in Congress show no courage?

    If it's courage you demand to see in others, first demonstrate that courage yourself.

    Parent

    well PUMA prgressives denied their vote (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    because it was easy to see back in March that he was moving right.

    Theres 18 million to the left of him.

    Parent

    One big "nit" to pick with your comment (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    IMO preservation of the Constitution and and safeguarding the rights that it grants citizens of the U.S. is an American cause and should not be described as a progressive cause. The very least each citizen should demand of its elected officials is that they honor their oaths of office to protect the Constitution.  That IMO is the minimum requirement.

    We are in agreement about the other point in your comment. We the Democratic voters are behaving just like the Dem leadership that we berate. We spend a lot time blustering, calling and sending sternly written letters before we capitulate and then meekly fall in line.

    Parent

    Having some polling does help (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    It wasn't necessary for most though.  Lick your finger, stick it in the air, there is a howling gale blowing left in this country at this very minute!

    I agree with that .... (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by bjorn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    I am pissed because I think BTD is right. The only thing Obama is accomplishing by moving to the center is contributing to the perception that the goals of the "left" are too out there!  It sets him up to give up a lot in any negotiation with the right as soon as the talking starts.  So even though the wind is blowing left, Obama is screwing up our chances of real change down the road.

    Parent
    The problem is that he (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    refused the flank on UHC and the rest sorta followed from that logically.

    Parent
    So the center position in the U.S. (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    supports dismantling the Constitution? We would be more effective IMO if we described Obama's actions as going against the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is polling data to support that statement. The majority of the citizens of the U.S. do not support telecom immunity and they do support warrants.

    Parent
    Obama winning/losing votes (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    Many of the Obamanauts I know are hard-core progressives. While I never understood their adulation they are the ones who are becoming jaded as they see Obama's position on actual issues.
    One guy who I did a Dean house party with back in the day didn't care about anything other than the war vote.

    Is Obama gaining votes by shifting or refining his stances? I doubt it. But I know he's losing some.

    Many will still vote for him but as the enthusiasm wanes, the $$ will be drying up and the GOTV energy will be lackluster.

    the reason they are slower than us (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    is that they didn't LISTEN to the debates. cnn exit polling consistently found we listened carefully to debates, they didnt. They screeched about how what color Clinton wore rather than listening, but we who listened heard what his position was, back then.

    What a tragedy for our party, and our planet.

    Parent

    moving to the middle is for Broderatti consumption (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    it buys Obama a couple of weeks of good press before the hellstorm is unleashed.

    Moving To The Middle (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    Hasn't just caught the attention of the bloggers and media pundits. Oh no! The lil' people are taking notice and, some who are Obama-Primary voters, ain't happy and they are writin' about it.

    Is This The Same Barack Obama? (New York Times, 7/8)

    Yeah, cry all you want folks. The milk's been spilt!

    He's a centrist Dem who moved (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    slightly to the left for the primaries.  Everything in his history confirms that.  I stopped supporting him in the fall when I realized that.

    In order to move to the middle, (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Obama would have had to tack left.

    Instead, he is searching for that mythical creamy center located vaguely between the far right and the extreme right.

    Problem is, those voters are going to McCain.

    Bob Herbert in today's NYT (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by jpete on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He's lurching right when it suits him, and he's zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.


    Oooops! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    Another Obama supporter experiences buyers' remorse...

    Parent
    Do see the earlier thread in which (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    we dissect and dismember Mr. Herbert and his ilk.  Bah.

    Parent
    Any benefit he got from his firearms shift (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    are negated by the FISA fiasco. Only the high-information types in the Gun vote would consider going Dem, over the rest of the Bill of Rights, but not for a Dem who's soft on the 4th Amendment.

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST


    If dems proove year after year (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:15:39 PM EST
    that they'll vote dems no matter what (and this year the no matter what seems even more important)
    then Obama is correct in not worrying what he says or where his positions go! He will get their votes. This philosophy doesn't take genius thinking!!!

    i was voting for change (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    and he changed my mind with the center move.

    From what to what? (none / 0) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    Why do Democrat's (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Insist on playing defense. Republican stick to their guns and play offense. Instead of taking the Republican's head on on issues they have popular support for, Democrats invariably cave. If it isn't the war, it's FISA, abstence only programs, woman's rights,faith based initiatives, schools vouchers and now social security. What's left that the Party really believes in?

    Obama denies moving to the middle article (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Saul on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

    Obama denies shifting to reach political center

    Dismisses and blames others (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    this time us, lol!~

    Parent
    AIIGHGGH (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Why do you torture me so, BTD? I know the better candidate was left behind, she hasn't given up her delegates, and all it takes is the Supes to change their votes in August, WHICH THEY WON'T.

    And you give me even more reasons to put my head in a bucket and POUND POUND POUND.

    This hurts, man. This really hurts.

    Reading the full article (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    Having let loose the rabid attack dogs on Clinton, he now no longer has use of them and seems to happy to ignore their slavering on FISA.  They had better be careful, or he'll have someone take them out back and shoot them.  Because that's what you do with rabid animals.

    Each time I have the urge to laugh at the poetic justice of having the man whom they pledged their undying love betray them -- I stop short, remembering that the fallout of their well-deserved justice spills over to me, this country, the world, and years of our political future trying to undo the damage wrought by their pillaging.  We'll all have to pay the piper they hired.

    What BTD said... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    I would bet dollars to donuts that most of the folks who now perceive Obama as "less liberal" are liberals themselves. It seems to me all Obama has accomplished with his "move to the middle" is anger the Dem base, created a "flip flopper" meme and changed the terms of the debate to one where the Dem position is the "Far Left" one.

    As seems to be the rule these days, you're not just speaking for yourself!

    This is such a longstanding problem for the Dems, and it is just infuriating to see it playing out in an election year in which the electorate seems primed to see the political "center" moved to the left in so many ways. Sheesh.

    Would it be wrong of me to wonder (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    if that "reformed Republican" with whom Obama had a little back-and-forth was a plant?  From your link:

    The Illinois senator was responding to a question from a self-described "reformed Republican" who said he worked for Democrat Bobby Kennedy four decades ago and thanked Obama for restoring "that faith."

    "You had an interesting week off being accused of flip-flopping, which is mostly nonsense," the man said. He then asked Obama to restate his Iraq position, and Obama used the opportunity to dispel the idea he had changed his stances on a range of issues.

    Seemed a little too convenient to me.


    he must think I'm a moron (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    and thinks I didnt notice him ascribe political motivations to the AUMF vote.

    a moron like me would certainly be too stupid to even consider voting for obama.

    The move makes sense to me (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    For a couple of reasons
    1. It makes the he is a is a liberal attack less effective after the conventions (I have never understood why it is effective, but it obviously is, as every liberal politician has run away from this label)

    2. I think he assumes he can win this thing, and by moving to the center especially on guns, it gives more conservative democrats in red states a better chance to win.  Liberal districts are already locked up, so to win in more conservative districts, these dems will need help.  The more democrats he has in office will allow him to put in place ambitious policy

    3. I never thought of him as a "liberal", he seemed like many black democrats (which outside of civil rights, are generally more conservative then their white counterparts)

    I will say that I think the FISA thing is a mistake.  I agree (politically) with his siding with the court on guns and the death penalty (I am VERY against both).  I think if he blocked FISA his other "centrast" moves would be easily forgiven.

    He hasn't changed his position at all on the war or choice, and has seemed to move left on gay rights- though this is just a perception from reading a few articles here and there.

    Obama disagreed (none / 0) (#175)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    with the court on the death penalty for child rapists. He's for it.

    Parent
    I am sorry that is what I meant (none / 0) (#179)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    Thanks for the correction.

    Parent
    I really just don't get it. (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    The percentage of people who think the country is moving in the wrong direction has been going steadily up, to the point where I think it is somewhere above 80% - that's a lot of people who aren't happy with the Republican control of government and the effect it has had on the country.

    Poll after poll after poll has been showing that a majority of people trust Democrats to do a better job of handling a long list of issues.  And even though the questions did not ask them whether they would prefer the conservative version, the moderate version or the liberal version, the numbers for Democrats continued to go up.  Bush's approval rating is headed into the teens.

    Seems to be there was a base there of people who were not looking for Bush-lite, for more of the same - who were ripe and ready to be brought into the progressive arena - who were so sick and tired of the abysmal policies and actions of Republicans that it seemed to them that it was time for a Democrat.

    Why, in the name of all that is holy, has this opportunity been squandered in favor of a nominee who thinks the way to win is to slide ever-closer to the side of the spectrum that people are already fed up with?

    Had he embraced and advocated for the more liberal position, Obama could have had some 18 million Clinton voters in a heartbeat, to add to the 18 million who had already voted for him.  Instead, he's losing support from Clinton voters who were willing to vote Democratic with no questions asked, and support from people who were convinced he was a real Democrat and now feel duped.  The Republicans and Dems-for-a-Day must be looking at him and thinking, "Hmmm...if he's going to be more like McCain, I might as well vote for the Real McCain."

    Something tells me that if there are more polls like this one, we will see the reverse flip, with Obama tacking back to the left - but will anyone at that point buy the inevitable "this was always my position" explanation?  

    I would love to get a look at the internal polling the Obama campaign has, because it just strikes me as impossible for it to be showing that abandoning the base and pandering to the right is the path to victory.


    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    I was specific.  Can't get more specific than a proper noun.  Google Obamameter.

    actually, it's obamamometer n/t (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by sassysenora on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST


    Nice Job (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by pluege on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    What the geniuses of the Obama campaign have accomplished is the same old perfect republican meme:

     1) democrats stand for nothing

     2) democrats are under the thumb of a radical fringe

    On top of that, when the people elect a Congress to stop a renegade president from destroying their country and all the Congress does is facilitate all the things the people want the Congress to stop, they don't like it. All Obama and his geniuses have demonstrated is that Obama is more of the same republican-facilitating Vichy Dem capitulating, American people nose-thumbing Washington insider that the people were so looking forward to getting away from. But Obama has shown that his "change" message is all hot air.

    I'm not surprised by Obama's centrist/right stance (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    Obama was my 3rd choice, after Kucinich and Edwards dropped out.  Senator Obama said last year that he thought the military budget needed to be increased.  Egad.  

    I signed on to the Obama Phenomena because I want a Democrat to win.  Obama is the presumptive nominee, so I'm on board.  

    I remember Bill Clinton and Ricky Ray Rector -- I was disappointed in Clinton, but I still voted for him.  I'll do the same with Obama.

    Seems to me his move to the "center" (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    is more about redefining the center and helping to speed the disintegration of the GOP coalition by winning over the libertarian wing who are the most dissatisfied of all with the current state of the Republican Party. It's more about giving them less reason to vote against him than against a continuation of the current corrupted GOP, and not so much about fully lining up with their ideas. It's the counterpart to McCain being painted as Bush's third term. If those people aren't fired up to vote for Obama at least they won't be fired up to go vote against him and may just stay home.

    It's the kind of thing (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    that makes me consider subbing to Ras for the crosstabs. But their product really doesn't justify their prices IMO.

    And of course, Nate Silver disagrees. But frankly,I don't think much of his punditry. Better that he stick to projections.

    Oh, and what's going to be more effective (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    than "moving to the center"? Ads like this

    Parent
    From the man that voted FOR (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    the Cheney Energy Bill?

    And saying that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time may just come back and bite him. Especially because McCain has a lousy attendance record  ;)

    Parent

    How about this one (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    from someone who did not vote for the Cheney Energy bill?

    Purpose

    Parent

    Oh no he didn't! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    He took the JFK frame ("we did it because it was hard") and made it his own. AND he tied the idea of national security to energy.

    These are the two main things the Democrats needed to do.

    He is running to the left of Obama.

    I think my head just exploded.

    Parent

    And he didn't say one negative (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    thing about Obama.

    Parent
    McCain has another ad that does (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    talk about Obama -- about taxes, and it's running a lot in Wisconsin now . . . where in our awful economy in this state, it could have effect.  We'll see.

    Parent
    I'm going to say this again (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    About the only part of John McCain's campaign that seems to be working correctly is his media shop. His ads are pretty good, and his latest is no exception. Culture Wars!

    Parent
    They do put out a good image (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    clear and strong.

    Parent
    McCain is starting to look more like a (1.50 / 2) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    democrat than the democrat.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    I don't think I will see any ads until right before the election  :)

    Does the McCain tax thing sound truthful and issue based vs vague?

    Parent

    Hey RalphB - you inspired me. (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    Just wrote a post about McCain's ad.

    Gave you and TL a hat tip, too. :-)

    Parent

    McCain foreshadowed exactly this theme (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    in his end-of-the-primaries-day speech, although I think I was only one of 10 or so people who watched.  (for the record, I had the tv on waiting for Clinton's South Dakota victory speech).

    I picked up on it only because my bellwether died-in-the-wool Republican friend has become a soldier for recycling, energy conservation, and exploring alternative energy sources.  Expect this to be a huge push for McCain.  I don't know if it will translate to the middle, but Republicans love it.

    Parent

    I was only (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    half-listening to an Obama ad yesterday, but I think I heard him say something about wanting to move people off welfare rolls into jobs.

    Isn't that what Clinton bashers screamed about when he pushed for the same thing as president?  

    Parent

    Obama screamed about it way back when n/t (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:50:57 PM EST
    Not only that (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    but in the ad, he doesn't just say it was a good idea, he claimed he helped to make it happen.

    Memo to Obama: you can't flip-flop back in time.  You can only change your present positions on the issues.

    Parent

    That ad is said to be running (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, but I haven't seen it here, and I'm in Wisconsin's major media market.  I did see the "I'm a Midwesterner" (ha:-) Obama ads for a while, but not for a week or so now.

    I am seeing an effective McCain ad, over and over, that started this week. . . .

    Parent

    What happened? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST


    I cleaned this thread of (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    wildly off topic comments, insults, racism remarks etc. It took me over an hour and I don't appreciate having to do it. I'm closing comments here.