So my insight here isn't going to be too popular.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

First off: I went Kucinich > Edwards > Obama. I was not a Clinton supporter.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason many here and elsewhere are so frightened by Obama's lurch to the right is simply because . . . wait for it . . . we just don't know him that well. There, I said it.

If Clinton did it, we'd all be going bat-shit crazy because she would have confirmed the worst fears in some of us--that she really harbors some neo-con leanings (which harbor some "liberal" leanings--at least in spirit).

Obama puts us in a position where we just don't know where he's at. If Gore did it, I'd just assume it was his rather Tennessee conservative democratic ways. If Clinton did it, ditto (or there'd probably some sort of triangulation there).

If Feingold did it, I'd be pretty sure he was doing it simply to get elected and to sprint to the center. I'd have absolute faith he was just doing a little wink-wink-nod-nod to get certain voting blocs in his column for the GE. And I imagine, and I hope, the same is true with Obama. But that's just me. Again, I think the overall discomfort with his going center/right is that we don't know what his MO is. You can't sell people on Hope and a "new kind of politics" only to quickly do what needs to be done to get elected--the old kind of General Election politics.

Others are worried because they think this strategy abandons his overhwelming success in the primaries. They are afraid that he's riding the wave of the primary energy but fear that the Obama camp has too much faith in the attention the American voting public pays to the primaries. They may, in fact, be correct. We'll see.

Some on the Left are frightened because he doesn't have a long voting record where we can see voting patterns emerge (election vs. non-election years). We can read his web page all day. We can read his voting records. But longevity in this case has its advantages. It would soothe those who are most excited about his candidacy (i.e., those who are relative new-comers to American politics).

In sum: there is a good reason some on the left are worried. Is it because he's a centrist in progressive clothing? No, I don't think that's it (or that's primarily the case). I think the trouble is many just don't know him well enough. It's funny, this is what the right is also counting on in trying to paint him as the "most liberal" candidate for President EVAH. They will rewrite his narrative. They figure only a fraction of the voting public were actually paying close attention.

So perhaps in all of this the ultimate question is: when it comes to the repubs' strategy, will the Obama campaing be proactive, reactive, or a bit of both? And how will democratic voters respond? With comfort (understanding the wink-wink); with fear (that this really IS Obama); or with disgust (so much for a new politics)?

Please add to whatever it is I've left off with all of the various permutations.

This post is not meant to demean anyone, especially our democratic candidate. Obama 2008.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Well said. Obama has been a bit of a blank slate onto which folks have projected...

all sorts of traits and views.

We don't know him well at all. If Hillary Clinton did these things, she'd be trashed as a DLC DINO.

I like your reference to Russ Feingold. I really like him and am sorry he bailed on the presidential race so early. Some folks here were asserting that Obama is "more progressive" than Feingold! No kidding!

I'm a Clark > Feingold > Richardson > Clinton pattern who will vote for Obama with enthusiasm.

Hey Obama, need a lift?

[1Hippiechick]

4. It can't be both ways. Where is the line between novice and career politician?

[ruggerson]

2. He's a pragmatist

"Hope and change" is his ticket. Bill Clinton rode the same wave.
It's not a new paradigm, this is just a different era.

During the primary, I gave Hillary the leeway to do what she had to do, so my attitude is why shouldn't I give Obama the same consideration.

I never thought either was a superior human being to the other. I think they're both in this for primarily the right reasons, but they're both politicians and necessarily self absorbed and rather egomaniacal.

And neither of them is an ideological purist to the extent that they will take a politically untenable position for the glory of it.

Obama will do what he has to do to win. Which is a GOOD thing. (It was also a good quality that Hillary possessed, so I guess I'm trying to be consistent in not applying standards to one that I ignore in the other.)

[KittyWampus]

3. there was no fucking "lurch to the right". By the way, GORE DID DO IT. They are all CENTRISTS.

God, I hate DU these days.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. Sorry. I assumed the implication of my post was "PERCEIVED" lurch to the right.

I should have spelled it out more clearly. Right now, people are trying to figure out the political implications of FISA et al.

I wasn't a fan of Gore. If we assume a President has to make the tough and right decisions, then LIEBERMAN (a choice that made me vomit in my mouth). But I digress.

"They're all CENTRISTS."
I think that's about right.

[LWolf]

6. I don't think he's a centrist in progressive clothing.

I think he's a right-leaning centrist in centrists clothing, and he has been all along.

I think that some on the left got caught up in all that hope and inspiration and never noticed the clothes, or the man, behind it all.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. Again, my point wasn't to try to define what he *really* is.

My point is that this is still up for grabs--even at DU. We don't really know how to respond. My point isn't to argue whether or not he's a pragmatist, a centrist, a progressive (wink wink), doing a good-cop/bad-cop thing, etc. My point is that because he's young, new to the Senate, etc., we have no real patterns to go on. I've read his bio., and I have my own impressions of what his core beliefs are. But, again, that's not the point of my post.

So maybe Clinton and the right were somewhat correct: he's an unknown commodity. I think the reaction (perhaps even over-reaction) to FISA, Oil, gay marriage, Clark's statement on McCain, etc. is somewhat expected.

[LWolf]

8. Your point is taken.

I don't think it's that much of a mystery. I think it's been pretty obvious, if you looked at his history, his record, his platform, and his speeches without the "change" and "inspiration" lenses.

[Straight Shooter]

9. Popularity be damned. You wrote a good post.

Time will tell who Obama really is; that is to say, as much as we can really know any politician. They're all rather closed-off from us, ultimately.

edit typo

[goodgd_yall]

10. "lurch to the right"

I haven't been on the DU board for many weeks. I couldn't help but laugh reading that. So this is what's been going on while I've been gone---Obama is lurching right!!

Same-o same-o DU.