"Distrust' grows as Obama tilts towards center

[depakid]

Barack Obama’s support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.

On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.’s “most liberal” senator.

During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.

<snip>

Politically, Sen. Obama also endorsed Georgia’s Rep. John Barrow, a conservative white Southern Democrat, against a liberal African-American woman, state Sen. Regina Thomas, in the July 15 primary. The move raised eyebrows, because party leaders generally don’t get involved in intraparty skirmishes. While Ms. Thomas may have more appeal among Democratic primary voters, Mr. Barrow is widely viewed as in a better position to win in this swing district.

The endorsement also stoked anger on the left.

“It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity,” OpenLeft.com wrote regarding Sen. Obama’s nod, agitating for Ms. Thomas to score a primary upset.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/25/9883/

[Spouting Horn]

1. Of course

Obama is moving towards the center...he wants to win the election.

He will govern strongly to the left though.

[jgraz]

2. What makes you think he'll govern from the left?

When has he governed from the left in the past?

[Political Tiger]

22. According to Obama detractors, he's the "most liberal Senator" in the Senate.

I wish people would make up their minds! :)

[jgraz]

24. That's the right-wing spin. I'm sure Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders would disagree

[bjobotts]

57. And their right.He's not that liberal or progressive. He should be criticized

when he goes right wing on an issue. You can support Obama because he's a million times better than McCain and still criticize him when he sides with Bush/Cheney/Bond and Blunt on issue X and against the fourth amendment and then deceitfully spins the capitulation as some sort of "compromise". You can have both thoughts in your head at the same time. "As president you can trust that I will keep a watchful eye on these new found executive powers"...bullshit...that's how the compassionate conservative Bush started off. Don't ever blindly support anyone who wants to have that much power over you. Keep a keen eye on those who say trust me rather than just be bound by the constitution.

[bluerum]

3. Media will play this up to turn dems on themsleves.

[asjr]

8. The media will bleed it dry.

[tom_paine]

23. Exactly. It's their job to serve their corporate owners. Their only job.

They do it well.

Notice this is from the Wall Street Journal.

Take a grain of truth and wrap a boulder of lies around it.

[adnelson60087]

30. Even if it is from A conservative paper,

are the acts of Obama, as laid out in the piece, one's that you support? Did he really endorse a more conservative white candidate over the more liberal black woman? Did he make aggressive pro-AIPAC statements against Iran and others in the middle east? Did he vote for the Telecom immunity? If so, then perhaps the man is not what many think he is and should be called out for it.

[tom_paine]

37. I can't argue that. It's just that the Bushies lie and mislead so goddamned much,

it's difficult now to take ANYTHING they say at face value. Lies of omission, lies of commission, all of the whole Bushie spectrum.

What's ironic is, in their persectuted minds, similar in mentality to the Nazis who thought the Jews were persecuting THEM, they have basically created what they believed, falsely, that the Democrats had arrayed against them.

Projection. Just like the Nazis. And just like the Nazis, the Bushies are everything and worse than what they accused their enemies of being. In the Nazis' case, the Jews; in the Bushies' case, the Liberals.

But I digress. The bottom line is that:

a) You have a very good point here.

and

b) Bushies and their media, the Bush Lie Machine, are so mendacious and such liars using the most sophisticated techniques and "plausible deniability" for heir lies, the most advanced every seen before in human history.

Are there any other links to the story that aren't part of the Bush Lie Machine?

[adnelson60087]

47. Your point about the Bush Lie Machine and their enablers are

well received, but actions DO speak louder than words, especially when we're about to elect the person who will fill the most powerful position of political power in the western hemisphere and possibly the world. Those actions as detailed above can be searched individually on google news, I'm sure.

[Elidor]

53. This is not just the WSJ

If you need examples of lefties criticizing these moves, Jane Hamsher and Atrios have both been highly critical of him the last couple of days*. Josh Marshall has taken note of the backlash. While it is indeed the job of these corporate stooges to play up any division, the division is no less real because of the venue it's discussed in.

*Atrios said something just today which I won't even post here because of the inevitable flamewar that would ensue.

[bjobotts]

58. But we're too stupid to see through the media. We believe everything they or Obama say.

[jgraz]

4. Who is telling him that this is a good idea?

He just won a primary against the champion of running to the center (and well past it). He's got a 15 point lead overall, he's building leads in just about every state and he's getting the majority of independents. Oh, and his opponent is a worthless POS of a candidate.

Why the HELL does he have to move rightward?

[Enthusiast]

39. Because the right wing attack machine is

Painting Obama as a dangerous & radical liberal. Like with past Democratic candidates, once they have this 'liberal' label they become unelectable. The polls mean absolutely nothing right now.

Anyone should be able to see this. It is the standard Republican playbook. "Obama is against gun rights. Obama is for late term abortion and killing babies born alive. Obama is weak on terrorism. Obama is weak on defense." I could go on and on. I think you should get realistic. If you want Obama elected, that is.

[bjobotts]

59. Don't buy it. The public has changed from holding those views and all polls indicate it.

[bjobotts]

60. If you refrain from criticizing Obama now then you never will for one reason or another.

[bjobotts]

61. To get him elected, to get him reelected, to protect his popularity etc.

[doublethink]

5. So lets see ......

"I distrust Obama now so much because he is showing signs of moving toward the center" therefore it is only logical that I cast my vote for McCain WHO IS SO FAR RIGHT WING NO WHERE CLOSE TO THE F .... CENTER ..... but hey I can trust that right? right? :eyes: :crazy:

[gateley]

7. Read this post by subliminal in response to my statement that

our candidate needs to move to center to win the GE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3517995&mesg_id=3518434

And the Harry Truman vote is right on.

I've been kind of lenient about the "strategies" used in the campaign, but I've come to the conclusion that we want a real DEMOCRAT -- and I'm not down with the DLC moving to center strategy any more.

This is going to be an issue between the supporters -- it's a tough call.

[Two Americas]

15. hey gately

I think you are right - this is going to be an issue between the supporters.

Why don't we work it out? I don't think it is going to just disappear.

I don't see how a candidate can run to the right (supposedly to get elected,) and then somehow govern strongly from the left. If they are elected on right-leaning positions, why change after they are in office? Are we saying that we need to deceive the public? Are we saying that the people would not support the traditional principles and ideals of the party? All of that sounds weak and delusional to me.

I am not blaming Obama for this, or even Pelosi et al. I think we, the people in the activist community are the ones responsible for this, and that we could change it as well. We live in a representative democracy. If we tell the candidates that running to the right is OK and what we want, that we will admire them and applaud them for being clever and doing that, then we can't really blame them for perfectly representing our wishes, can we? If every time someone here suggests that we should tell the candidates to run to the left they are accused of hurting the party or the nominee, we are in effect telling the candidates that we want them to run to the right.

[doublethink]

19. No actually it's a non-issue ... we have our Candidate and he is .....

Peace. :hi:

[mrbluto]

21. Is that where you think it ends?

That there is no more need for thought or deliberation now that we have a presumptive nominee?

What an impoverished view of Democracy.

Voting is not like ordering a pizza, where you place an order, and either it shows up in thirty minutes and you eat it, or it doesn't and then have a right to complain.

You got to keep an eye on these guys even when you like them. Maybe not the candidate so much as the staffers and others that crop up around them.

Goose-stepping around and yodeling "Dear leader is right!" doesn't even do the candidate much of a favor.

If we're all keeping an eye out then it's easier for Obama, in his future administration, to keep things honest. He can say "Sorry, as much as it may be a sweet deal, the public is watching. Kill that earmark."

Think of his own staff, congress and the senate, hell - corporations too, like a suspect being given the third degree. The more effective a "Bad Cop" we all are is the more effective of a "Good Cop" he can be.

When dealing with these guys he can be all "look at the scrutiny my policies and actions are subjected to by my own supporters - do you think I'm going to cut you any slack?"

That's not going to work so well if if we're out here yawning. Nor if we're all out here saying Obama-uber-alles no matter what he does. They could just go "come on. Play ball, they'll love you no matter what." and he wouldn't have much of a counter.

Plain laziness, or lazy thinking in our support, both would undermine his leverage.

[doublethink]

27. Call it what you will. Your clouding of this issue won't work.

It's either McSame or Obama. That's the point of the ballgame we are at now. Live with it or don't. Accept reality make a choice and move on, you only have two. Holding the next administrations feet to the fire will begin when they take office. Just as we have attempted to hold the current one, along with the Senate and Congress ...... all along the way. How well we have done or will do that is not part of THIS ARGUMENT.

"That there is no more need for thought or deliberation now that we have a presumptive nominee?" The Primaries are OVER. Not when the argument impedes the Democratic Nominee (OBAMA) from getting elected over McSame. Not in my book. This website is for DEMOCRATS ... and he carries our banner now like it or not. Again the Primaries are OVER. We will hold our elected officials feet to the fire when the time comes. It's not my intent to divide our party further ...... is it yours? Peace mrbluto, how's Olive Oil? ;)

[Two Americas]

29. strange view

What you are describing is the opposite of representative democracy.

You say debate is OK unless it "impedes the Democratic Nominee (OBAMA) from getting elected" as though this were fact, and as though your notion as to what does and what does not impede anything cannot be questioned.

How do we know that what you are calling for does not "impede the nominee"? I think it does.

Since when was representative democracy a matter of the people getting out of the way of the politicians so we don't "impede" them?

You ask us to give up principles for the sake of practicality. I say that that what you are asking for is impractical as well as unprincipled, and that there is no such oppositional relationship between principle and practicality as you claim, and as you demand we all accept there to be.

I half expected to see a sarcasm tag at the end of your post, but I guess you are serious.

[doublethink]

34. No actually what I'm attempting to describe are the rules of The Democratic Underground .....

at least my humble interpretation of them ... here maybe this is better ......

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. -snip-

Now that Senator Obama is our presumptive nominee, he holds a special position in the party, and on Democratic Underground. Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November we're not going to cut you a great deal of slack. -snip-

That pretty much covers everything you need to know...

* Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party: Permitted.
* Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks against Democrats: Not permitted.
* Using this message board to work for the defeat of any Democratic Party nominee for any political office: Not permitted.

If you follow those rules, you'll be just fine. If you try to find a way around those rules, you take your chances with the moderators. It's that simple.


here for re-familiarizing at what point in the game we are now :) ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

Note: My views on Democracy, The Constitution, etc... etc... have nothing to do with the argument. Neither do I wish to take my time arguing them here, hell they are probably the same views held as yourself ... Peace Again. :)

[Two Americas]

say what?

"If you follow the rules, you will be just fine?"

I didn't ask you for advice, and resent having the rules read to me. Why slyly hint that I am trying to get around the rules? That is dishonest and highly suppressive, and has no place in honest open debate.

Opinions differ as to the best way to win. Continuing to insinuate that those who disagree with your approach are somehow violating the rules or are traitors is unacceptable anywhere anytime, under the pretext of any excuse, and in my sincere and humble opinion does more harm to the cause than good. May I continue to offer my opinion about the best way to defeat the Republicans? By what stretch of the imagination does that run afoul of the rules here, or the rules anywhere covering debate in a free and open society? The point of having rules for debate is to encourage, support and protect free and open discussion, not to use them as a weapon against those whose only crime is that they happen to express an opinion that differs from yours.

[doublethink]

38. "If you follow the rules, you will be just fine?"

Those are not my words but Skinners. Did you bother to read the link ..... ??????????? Please do. Peace.

here again .... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

[Two Americas]

42. right

You are not Skinner.

[saracat]

56. WE must insist that Obama "be" the candidate "we" want him to be. He is either an

"agent of change" as he represented himself or he is playing "old politics"If he is willing to be politically expedient with our wishes now, when he "needs" us, what is the reason to "trust " that he will be any different in office? When has Obama EVER staked out less than a politically advantageous route for himself?

This is not about Obama, as many seem to think .This is about US and "our" futures. I care about FISA and Fair Media. I care about iniversal health care .And the war in Iraq .I acre about ending NAFTA.We MUST hold Obama's feet to the fire on these issues and we can only do it NOW , while we have influence and he wants something from us.

I have a problem "trusting" a politician who has broken so many promises and he hasn't been elected yet. We must help to make him the candidate we want him to be and we can't do that by turning the other cheek and say "do whatever you want to get elected". he isn't going to "fool" the GOP, if he is just running to the right to govern from the left. They aren't that stupid. That is why chimpy has a 28% approval rating.Many of them want positive change as much as we do But he won't get those votes by waffling and he could lose a lot of ours. It is up to us as participants in a democracy to let him hear our voices and demand that he represent the needs of the people and not play political "games" with our futures!

[bjobotts]

62. You can support him over McCain and still hold him accountable at the same time.

[bjobotts]

63. Don't let your fear turn Obama into another 1st term Bush 'cause you can't say anything "bad"

[saracat]

65. Absolutely .Well said!

[saracat]

64. Yes you can.

[adnelson60087]

31. Hi Two Americas

It's great to see you again. We need candidates who can speak to the "muddled middle" and explain why they need to move LEFT, not rush to meet them in the center. This act would be called LEADERSHIP, and is what a guy like Edwards was trying to do. Obama is just another pol.

[doublethink]

36. Please see post #34. n.t.

Again ..... the primaries are OVER.

[Two Americas]

40. what are you talking about?

The entire point of supporting any candidate in the primaries is because that is our opportunity for expressing our support for particular positions. No primary result gives anyone the right to force others to abandon or be silent about their opinions nor to cease advocating for the positions they support.

McCarthyism and witch hunts are OVER. Please try to get behind our presumptive representative democracy and accept the agreed upon principles that are the foundation of a free and open society. People did a little more and made a far greater sacrifice to win those than anyone did to win any primary for any candidate.

Support democracy, and stop trying to suppress dissent under this specious and suppressive doctrine that the results from primaries give anyone the right to dictate what people can and cannot express. That is how we will win.

This is not about supporting or not supporting our candidate, as you falsely maintain. It is about knuckling under to one particular narrow, and I believe weak and self-defeating notion about how we are all to properly "support" the candidate, and it is about giving people permission to shut down other people who are expressing opinions they do not like under the cover of "supporting" the nominee.

[adnelson60087]

48. Well said. Well said!

[Two Americas]

43. hey adnelson

Good to see you too!

I couldn't agree more -

"We need candidates who can speak to the 'muddled middle' and explain why they need to move LEFT, not rush to meet them in the center. This act would be called LEADERSHIP."

I fear that there are many whose first priority is to move the party to the right and to smash the left wing of the party, and only secondarily to beat the Republicans. They hide behind party "loyalty" and call this "supporting the nominee."

It was a contentious and long primary season, and close to half the primary voters supported other candidates - maybe more, hard to tell since it became a two person race pretty quickly. Many people supported other candidates not because they were infatuated with their personalities - though some always are with every candidate - but for solid and well-considered political reasons. It does not help us win to ask all of those millions of people to abandon their political views under the guise of claiming that to do otherwise somehow "helps Republicans" or hurts our cause. I am strongly convinced now that the exact opposite is true.

[Beausoleil]

26. Thanks, gateley!

:hi:

[mrbluto]

17. So let's NOT see....

...where the f*ck the OP makes the leap you'd like to see him make so it's easy to put words in his mouth.

Are you that god-damned lazy?

Just because the OP mentions apprehensions or skepticism you read that as vote for McCaine?

But how can I counter what you say...,<sniff> you put it in capital letters. That makes what you say soooooo much more compelling and logical.

Yours is a typical tactic - you present a false choice the OP never proposed, hoping that it will terminate the debate.

A debate you would lose.

[doublethink]

18. Stuck PIg .....

Gotta wonder when "some people" squeal like a stuck pig, whether one has hit a nerve.

Stifle the truth? Pleeeeze. You're doing a fine job at that.

Who the hell are you swinging at? Do I know you?

A little sensitive are we?

As a favor to me and everyone else, please rub two of your rare neurons together and think about what the hell you're saying before you post.

(we're all good now, right?)

Ha ha ha !!! :rofl:

fucking mrbluto !!! Where ya been dude? Peace. :hi: Too funny......

[mrbluto]

20. I'm stunned.

On one hand I feel like I should be insulted.

On the other it's clear that you've picked some of my better lines from my past posts and threw them back at me.

That's oddly flattering.

Do I know you?

Arrrg. Now I gotta go google you and see if I do know you.

...

Oh. I see. The entirety of a single post. Not a perfect fit in this context, but not terrible.

You recycled a post I made in March.

I am flattered. I must have made an impression.

[doublethink]

28. Yeah it was just your over-the-top snarky pissed off attitude .......

cracked me up at the time, ..... just as your post #17 up thread .... too funny. :smoke:

[AndyA]

6. Not liking the way this sounds at all.

Reminds me of Joe Lieberman.

We already have enough DINOs.

[bluerum]

9. And,,, you believe this from the MSM?

[adnelson60087]

32. Did Obama commit those acts or not? MSM or no, did he do them

or are we just expected to roll over and take it. I'm sick of doing that. Aren't you? Aren't we all???

[Speck Tater]

10. This is why Democrats keep losing.

I knew it wouldn't take long after clinching the nomination before the guy "everybody loved" became the guy everybody hates.

The Democratic party, in a sense, doesn't really even exist. What exists is a very loose coalition of separate, splintered, single issue interest groups. Instead of pulling for our guy to win, they go all postal on anyone who doesn't slavishly adhere to their own take on their special area of interest. To hell with the direction the country as a whole is moving, we've GOT to protect the snail darter. Nothing else matters.

It's time for these narrow minded people to broaden their outlook on life and realize that, as important as their pet issue might be, there are other issues just as important, and many issues even more important. I for one would gladly table humane treatment of laying hens for a while in exchange for a decent national health care plan now. We can always come back to the hens issue later. Not every issue can be THE issue that gets top priority.

Right now, THE issue that has top priority is winning the election. The "center" is called that because that's where most Americans live. And while Obama will be a Democratic president, he will also be president to ALL Americans, and to shun the center is to shun most Americans. That is simply not acceptable for ANY president.

[depakid]

11. WRONG

The Dems keep losing because they've tried (time and time again) to be Republican lite -rather than standing up for what (supposedly) they believe in.

Republicans won all those years for precisely the opposite reason- because people perceive that they DO STAND UP AND FIGHT, even if people don't believe in what they're fighting for (multiple polls on the issues confirm this, btw).

Want to be a loser yet again?

Follow the so called "centrist" "strategy of enabling and legitimizing far right policies, rather than drawing STARK and CLEAR and RATIONAL contrasts with Republican- and not pandering and waivering.

Indeed, if the Obama or the Dems do that yet again, after all that's happened- if they fail to learn, then they well deserve to lose.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Bill Clinton learnt the hard way, didn't he?

[depakid]

66. He'd have probably lost too, but for Perot

Republican lite is a losing strategy. It's proven so in every congressional election and 2 presidential elections since 1994;

In 2006 on the other hand, Democrats actually drew a contrast and made noises that sounded like support for traditional democratic values again. The noise faded quickly though- and Congress' approval ratings dove lower than Bush's own!

Seems to me there's a lesson there.

[closeupready]

35. And you know, I realize I'm supposed to support the nominee, but

for those (out there) who are not so committed, this is PRECISELY what sunk Al Gore in 2000 (though, I know, he did squeak out a popular vote win, but if it had been more sweeping, there would have been no question), and if it comes down to it, and we have even a marginally viable third party candidate, and if voters perceive no difference between McCain and Obama (Tweedledee/Tweedledum), they may very well go with McCain because of all kinds of fair/not fair reasons.

The last two weeks have made me very pessimistic again.

[Two Americas]

45. great point

I talked about this in 98 and 99 - that we were seriously underestimating the threat and that the Gore campaign was taking a very weak stance. I still have a copy of an email exchange I had back then with Gore staffers, telling them that they were not sufficiently alert to what was coming and not fighting it head on, and that there was going to be he Hell to pay if they kept playing it cautiously and moving to the center. When they asked what I meant, I said "think stolen elections, think massive corruption on an unprecedented scale, think suspension of the Bill of Rights, think endless war, think torture and mass detentions, think private armies, think bankrupting the public treasury and destroying the economy, think false flag pretenses for establishing a police state." It was all out there in the PNAC documents and in the statements over the years by various figures in this administration. There was no excuse for being blind to the danger. I was dismissed at the time as a fringe radical paranoid tinfoiler, but everything I predicted has happened.

I can remember what people said to me at the time - "we need to pull together to beat the Republicans, and you are rocking the boat and hurting the cause, Gore and his professional staff know what they are doing and they are playing smart politics, you are being an alarmist, you are helping the Republicans, you are too radical, Gore is a real fighter and is in our corner so don't worry, first we need to get him into office, then we can worry about all of that other stuff" and on and on.

Good grief, how can we still be having this debate after the 8 year nightmare we have been through? How can the calls for silencing the dissidents be stronger than ever, when we now know that the dissidents were right about this specific point all along? How is it that the dissidents are still out in the wilderness being ignored?

I cannot understand why the leaders of the opposition party, our party, continue to lull and placate us (at best) and to take such a weak stance against such a clear and present danger and why so many of us continue to applaud and admire that. You don't solve the problem of dangerous conditions in the mine by killing or ignoring the canary.

[closeupready]

50. Wow, if that's a direct quote from your pre-2000 email, I am floored.

Amazingly prescient. As to why, very simple: money talks. They've just about all sold us out for campaign money, lucrative post-term speaking tours, industry lobbying jobs, etc. Too many of our so-called "representatives" are just well-dressed scumbags, and I look forward to the day when we get back to a responsive government. Or even if it's non-responsive, can we please have one that WORKS FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN? :mad:

[Two Americas]

51. thanks

Thanks, but it represents no great genius on my part, just observation of what is right out there in plain view. That group around Bush never made any secret of their plans and intentions. Even today when they have actually done most of the things they threatened to do, still we see all this denial among Democrats, so I do think it is denial and not a lack of information or insight that holds people back from seeing the truth about this.

[Enthusiast]

41. Much of America

Now understand Liberal in the way Rush Limbaugh has defined it for them. If Obama says he is for universal single payer medical coverage the Republican spin machine would destroy him. Same with the handgun ban and other issues. We must be realistic.

It is not a matter of Republican lite.

[Two Americas]

16. pet issues?

Defending the people from the escalating assault by the right wingers on behalf of their wealthy and powerful clients and fighting back strongly on behalf of the other 90% of the population is not a "pet issue." Asking politicians to take up this battle is not being a "purist" nor is it demanding that a candidate be "perfect." It is more like asking our candidates to be in the ball game - to show up for the battle.

Most Americans are not "in the center," except maybe on the culture war issues. 70% support the traditional principles and ideals of the party, the programs that aggressively tackle true political issues of economics and power, and would support a sweeping New Deal program to save the working class - which is over 90% of the population - from total destruction. Running on those principles and ideals has always given the party its greatest electoral success over the decades, as well, so it is a false choice that we are being forced to choose between principles and practicality, or ideals and winning.

This is not really about running to this non-existent "center," it is about running toward the haves and away from the have nots, toward tyranny and away from freedom, toward oligarchy and away from democracy; all of this at the expense of severely diminishing the well-being of 90% of the population. It is running to the right - toward supporting the interests, needs, and desires of the wealthy and powerful few.

[adnelson60087]

33. We don't need to shun the middle, we need to move them LEFT. Meeting

them where they are is ok, but staying there defeats the purpose of electing a supposed liberal.

[Two Americas]

46. right

This "middle" or "center" is a myth anyway. 70% of the people support the traditional principles and programs of the party, and would support New Deal programs today. They are about evenly split when it comes to supporting one or the other of two factions that control the two parties, liberals or conservatives, both of which represent the haves and ignore the have nots.

There is no "center" between the haves and the have nots. There is no "middle" between the culture war issue positions of the liberals and the conservatives. The public is overwhelmingly to the left on all issues that deal with wealth and power - which is what real politics is about.

What is the "middle" on the issue of torture? The Bill of Rights? Homelessness? Persecution and discrimination? War crimes? Spying on citizens? Corporate corruption? Dictatorial power in the hands of the executive? The collapsing standard of living? The transfer of all wealth from the public into the hands of the few? The destruction and privatization of public assets? Lack of access to health care?

Where the hell is this damned middle we have been pursuing since Reagan scared our socks off? There is no middle. "Middle" means "to the right, but disguise it a little."

[adnelson60087]

49. As a point of fact, I think of the middle-voter as one who agrees with both

Left and Right on different issues, so they split their votes and stances on positions. I think this is not a radical idea, but I fear the Left has done a really poor job of defining ourselves and let the Cons like Hannity and Rush define us. Thus the need for Left politicians to Lead and Teach the reasoning behind their stances, resulting in more lasting Left majorities.

[Two Americas]

52. yes

Good points. I agree.

[MasonJar]

12. The dems always tend toward "trying to win" instead of standing

strong for the American people which is the only way to win with honor. The only way for Obama to lose is to go against the things he said he stood for. Hillary, by the way, despite the DUers refusal to heed it, is left of Obama. She is left of Bill also. The first person I ever heard call for a Palestinian state was Hillary, back when Bill was pres., and the GOPers of course villified her without mercy. Hillary, a Yale Law School graduate, chose to work for children instead of big money. She is real and she and Bill are supporting Obama, so if the Clintons are DLCers, like y'all think, they'll bring in that segment. Obama can be a true progressive if he chooses to be. He'll lose if he goes too far center, because that is where most Americans think McCain is. DU, we are going to vote for Obama; please quit thinking he must be protected from us. He needs protection from getting the wrong advice. He beat the Clinton machine by being himself; he MUST continue the same tactic.

[caraher]

13. Obam is basically centrist

It came down to Barack and Hillary, and nobody is particularly surprised Edwards and Kucinich - both of whom seemed more popular in progressive circles - didn't make the cut.

The difference between Obama and Clinton on 95% of policy questions was virtually indistinguishable. The biggest difference in many minds was something neither candidate could change - Hillary's vote on the authorization for war in Iraq.

The man has charisma and is a smart campaigner. I'm confident that he'll find the right note to win the election. And even if he does govern to the right of Hillary, Obama is VASTLY preferable to the sole plausible alternative - McSame. He may not offer everything one might want on health care, corporate welfare, etc. but I think this election is about rebuilding after eight years of intentional incompetence, corruption, lawlessness and contempt for 99% of Americans (and even less regard for Iraqis).

[bjobotts]

55. There is nothing centrist about his FISA stand. We've been so far right that

centrist is still right wing. Describe left or far left and you'll find there is no such thing in America.

[Mark E. Smith]

25. Now here's a shock ..

Now that they don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore, I guess
the usual haters have decided its time to start bashing Senator Obama.

[corriente]

44. That is worrisome. And I had such high hopes.

[natrat]

54. ces't la vie-what a scumbag like most politicians