...with Poblano's take.

Let's remember the very definition of "triangulation" -- that "triangulation" comes at another politician in your own party's expense.  When Bill Clinton ran on v-chips and school uniforms, signed the welfare "reform" bill, and said that House Democrats were "extremists" for opposing the bill, that was the very definition of "triangulation."

Had the majority of the Senate Democratic caucus opposed the FISA "compromise" bill, and Barack Obama denounced those Democrats as "extremists" in order to get elected, that would be "triangulation."  But he didn't.  Instead, Barack Obama took the heat for supporting the "compromise" bill because he knew there weren't the votes to mount a successful leader, and he didn't want the public to see him as some weak, quixiotic liberal unable to get his own party's support on his initiatives.  What would it have said about Barack Obama's sense of direction, leadership qualities, and ability to pick up on the issues of the time if he were willing to go to the mat for FISA when 150,000 troops are in Iraq, 48 million Americans are without health insurance, and over 400,000 Americans have lost their jobs in the last six months?

What I'm seeing is that the standard DLC strategy of moving to the center and trying to co-opt everyone to the left of the Republican candidate (ignoring the downside of what this does to your political base, and the downside of what it does to the national issues agenda) used to be universally deplored on the blogs, but when Barack Obama does it then it's part of some brilliant microconstituency-targeting strategy that we should not question.

To me, this is entirely standard stuff and should be opposed for all the standard reasons.  If progressives don't grumble when Democrats pull this, they will assuredly keep on pulling it, and our issues will never come to the forefront.

You want to know the reason for Obama's "tack to the center"?  Check out McCain's newest ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpyOSLZw8 qo

Notice McCain's characterization of the 60's as "a time of uncertainty, hope, and change".  He is doing his best to paint Obama as a dangerous reactionary, and the netroots as "free-love hippies" reincarnate.  If that message is able to gain traction, then the William Ayers stuff will become that much more lethal.

It's ok to be upset with Obama's move to the center for the general, but at least look at it in a tactical way.  I'll be way more upset in November if McCain is able to hippie-bait his way to the Presidency than I am in July by rhetorical shifts to the center by Obama.

So when Obama tiangulates, its OK, but when Clinton did it, it was evil. The hypocrisy keeps growing everyday.

bankruptcy bill that need to fixed.  Hell it should just go the way of the dodo.

It is still a killer not just for veterans or seniors...it harms lots of people with medical problems. It still protects the credit card companies over things like child support.  They still come right after taxes in terms of priority....All of it is wrong...it is exacerbating the housing crisis.  It was a rotten bill at its fundament.

This is actually instructive not of the audacity of his progressive ambition...but the paucity of it.

I don't buy this notion that Obama has been intentionally tacking to the center.  Think he's always been just left of center.  During the primaries, Clinton was the clear favorite of rank-and-file Dems (especially those of a certain age).  Obama owes his victory to the fact that Dem-leaning indies participated (and it's the Clinton folk who now have the big problem with him, though 2/3rds seem to have come on board).

Here's the current situation in a nutshell.  Obama seems to be struggling to win the last 15-20% of Dems (those who voted for Clinton during the primaries).  This isn't a big mystery to me, and one can attribute this to two reasons: some fraction haven't gotten over the primaries (were very pro-Clinton); some fraction, frankly, can't get past the race issue (were very anti-Obama, Clinton just happened to be the beneficiary).  These numbers won't change until after the convention, if they budge at all (it's possible we've reached the point of eqiuilibrium).

And then there are the indies.  What about those who lean Dem?  Obama has them already.  What about those who are undecided?  You're not going to convince me that Obama's tack to the center has hurt him among this group.  If there is strategy going on, Obama is setting himself up so he can win this group of undecided indies (and pull off the sort of victory Reagan did in 1980, where indies jumped to him during the last weeks of the campaign).

I don't think that's what is going on, though.  This tack to the center is really about the GOP ushering out it's "flip flop" meme.  They're hoping they can provoke undecided voters into voting for McCain by building the case that Obama is wishy washy and can't be trusted.  While the swift boat stuff got all the attention back in 2004, it was really the "I voted for it before I voted against it" stuff which caused Bush to win indies by a narrow margin back in 2004.

Think the GOP is misreading the electorate.  For this strategy to work, indies who are undecided need to believe that McCain is a rigid leader of principle (and they don't, McCain has himself flip-flopped too many times, and the GOP brand is now tarnished).  But hey, can't stop them from trying.

At the end of the day, though, think the Dems stand a much better chance of winning over these undecided indies if they think Obama is at the political center than if they believe he's the most liberal member of the senate (so in that sense it's all good, but we probably won't see the benefits from this for another two months).  Unless, that is, these voters conclude that Obama is wishy washy (not letting that perception form should be job one for the Dems right now).  

been 100% consistent is the FISA thing, and even then there has been the intervening development of new legislation.

What has changed is that, now that the primary is over, the media is fully focused on trying to portray St. John as a maverick and Obama as a strange other, a radical liberal out of touch with Chris Matthews' 'normal white people.'  

So, you get questions about whether the death penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime of child rape.  It's the same crap the media has been pulling for decades.

...are simply repeating talking points being issued to the press in McBush's daily conference calls.

Obama's recent triangulation

Really? Actually, Obama's positions have remained uncharacteristically consistent -- for a politician.

Obama on faith-based initiatives, July 2008: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grass-roots groups, both faith-based and secular."

"I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-re  name-bushs-faith-office

Obama on faith-based initiatives, January 2008: "No, I don't think so, because I am much more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that's done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries.... I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn't conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that."

"My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we're not seeing government dollars used to proselytize."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story  _22894_1.html

Obama on guns, June 2008: "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

Obama said if elected president, he would uphold the rights of gun owners, but he said: "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/mccain.h  andgun.ban.2.757688.html

Obama on guns, February 2008: "Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bara  ck_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Obama on abortion, July 2008: "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_art  icle.php?id=7591

Obama on abortion, April 2008: "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack  _Obama_Abortion.htm

Obama on Iraq, July 2008: "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

http://www.endpoliticsasusual.com/2008/0  7/video-obama-on-iraq-it-needs-to- come-t  o.html

Obama on Iraq, November 2007: "You know, John on this one I actually think has been either misinformed or isn't being entirely straight. I am committed to getting all of our combat troops out by 16 months. So he can say first year. I've said 16 months based on what the generals and commanders tell me can be done. And we are going to have still, I believe, the need to have some forces that are available to go after terrorist bases should they emerge in Iraq. Now if he doesn't think that's an important function, then I'm happy to have that debate. But be perfectly clear, I will bring this war to an end as quickly as can be done with the safety of the troops in mind, and my belief is that we can get that done in 16 months."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/onair/tra  nscripts/071108_obama_barack.php

Obama on NAFTA, June 2008: "Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune's interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazine  s/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/

Obama on NAFTA, September 2007: "Obama was also pressed on trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement. He said he disagrees with more liberal rivals such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who want to scrap the deal. A better approach is tougher enforcement of labor and environmental standards, he said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18  ifortunei-article-selecti_n_10788 1.html  ?view=print

Obama on the death penalty, June 2008:"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Mr. Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-crit  icizes-supreme-court-death-penalty /80761  

Obama on the death penalty, October 2006: "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bara  ck_Obama_Crime.htm

Obama on telecom immunity July 3, 2008: I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.

That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

Obama on telecom immunity Jan 28, 2008: No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision.

Please stop spinning for the Republicans.

I don't see the move to the center?  Edwards was the most left leaning of the candidates.  Obama was always to the center of Edwards and Clinton with the exception of his 2002 Iraq position.  

What a disheartening discussion. First, let's call Obama what he is: OUR CANDIDATE. And let's look at history: There has never, ever been a pure progressive candidate elected to the presidency. It is imperative for all Democrats, independents and (that rare breed) thinking Republicans to realize that Obama is unelectable unless he can establish and preserve loyalty far beyond the progressive base.

Second, this point has been touched on above, but I have to underline it. This is NOT a level playing field. The media are treating the two candidates very differently. Obama uses slightly different words to reaffirm his position on withdrawal from Iraq, and, following the McCain campaign's propaganda, the media shout to the heavens that Obama has changed his position. (A little history here: During the early debates, Obama pledged to have the troops out by the end of 2013. Since then, he made his commitment more radical by imposing on himself a 16-month timeline for withdrawal, more than doubling the speed of withdrawal. His recent remarks simply recommitted him to the 16 month plan.)

In contrast, McCain takes mutually exclusive positions on almost every issue of importance to the American people and the media don't even raise an eyelid, much less give the American people the basic information about the flip-flops.

Third, look at the positions that Obama has taken in recent weeks that have stirred up all the fuss. (I will exclude FISA, which I find understandable, but still a real disappointment.)

GUNS: Individuals have a right to arms, but that right is subject to reasonable restriction by the state. This is a moderate position. The extreme position is that individuals can have no right to bear arms and that the state can ban weapons and take away those that citizens already have.

ABORTION: Obama's statement was limited to late-term intact dilation and extraction. The fact is that it is a gruesome procedure. (Many years ago I worked in surgery and assisted on many abortions.) It is a procedure that should only be used in extreme circumstances.

There are several problems with his comments. First, he used the rights term, "partial birth abortion." It has been very successful propaganda. However, if he had used any other term, most Americans wouldn't know what he was talking about. Second, he bandied around words about mental stress when the real test for a mental health exception is very, very strict already.

The problem with much of the abortion debate is that pro-choice folks have allowed themselves to be radicalized by the right-wing. The Right has been very successful in taking away abortion rights one little bite at a time, both in Congress and in state legislatures. That success has had the unfortunate effect of making pro-choice advocates defend the most extreme sorts of abortion procedures with the same ferocity as the rights that the great majority of Americans agree should be preserved. The net result is that any Democratic politician that wants to compete nationally has to put some distance between himself or herself and the most extreme pro-choice positions if that politician is to gain office and protect all the essentials of the right to choose.

DEATH PENALTY: There are dozens of different places to draw one's personal line in the sand on the death penalty. For myself, I find it hard to totally condemn the taking of the life of the most hardened criminal who has taken a life or lives in the most horrible circumstances. I still oppose the penalty because it has little deterrent effect, is applied differently to different defendants, and can be mistakenly applied. I also find it repugnant that the state is in the business of killing people.

I also think that the line is defensible when the rule is that only crimes in which a life is taken can be capital crimes.

However, I also see that imposing the death penalty for felony murder (for example, the driver a the car in a hold-up who never intended personal harm and was never present when the victim was harmed) may seem more extreme to some people than imposing it when the most extreme non-capital crime is committed (such as rape and mutilation of 5 or 6 year old child).

Unless you are an absolutist on this issue, then you most realize that as long as the death penalty exists, almost every category of offense and each individual case can force decisions that make both proponents and opponents miserable.

What Obama did was not to advocate for the death penalty in any particular case, but to recognize that even some crimes that don't involve the final taking of a life can still be so heinous that the death penalty MIGHT be applied if the circumstances are awful enough.

On each of these issues, our candidate has taken stands that are still far to the left of the majority position of the American people. Further, on most of these issues, he is right where he said he was all along. If elected, he will demonstrate to the American people that these and other progressive positions are workable and for the good of the country. By success and example, he will be able to help the country become more progressive.

I might have this wrong but I never thought of Obama as a "Liberal", but as a bridge between red and blue, conservative and liberal (small l).

I like the idea of a President who doesn't "cling" (maybe this word will get some upset) to an ideology, but someone who makes decisions based on the situation as it is in the moment.

As far as FISA, yes, I agree, he wants to go the middle ground now and prevent McCain from slam him as out of touch. He has always said, for the last several years that he wants to get the troops out of Iraq, but he will also listen to the generals on the ground as far as speeding things up or slowing the exit down a bit. Obama, unlike McCain said from the beginning that the war was wrong, but he has always said (pardon the misquote) "We have to be as careful going out as we were careless going in."

I am an Jewish atheist, but for over a year, I knew Obama was in favor of his favorable opinion of grants to religious organizations, as long as it doesn't involve proselytizing. I know, in NYC where I live, there is a Jewish Community Board that hires non-jews of every race, gender, religion and sexual orientation and never tries to convert people to Judaism. Since religious people like serving others, why not give them governments funds and use them - provided there are no strings attached.

Also, I have always known about Obama that he wants to end the constant ideological struggle between the pro life movement and the pro choice movement. As a community organizer he wants to be his own "rainbow coalition" and bridge the hugh chasm between the two groups. Obama says he is for preventing unwanted pregnancies. If anti-abortionists want "chastity" programs, he is OK with that. If they don't like third trimester abortions for "mental distress" he will say he is going along with that - even though he knows nobody gets a third trimester abortion for "mental distress". However, he is for all programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies, including sex education and condoms in schools. He also is for a woman's right to choose. Again to misquote Obama, "I don't want my own two girls to suffer for a mistake."

Again, I don't see Obama as very liberal, liberal, in the middle, conservative or very conservative. He is a person who looks at a situation as it is and makes a decision based on the facts and what he thinks is for the greater good. He may not be right all the time, and his choices may bring on unintended consequences, but he is better than McCain, Bush, or any of the ideologues that we have had in the past.

I forgot something. Dukakis lost the election, in my opinion, in a debate when he would support the death penalty for someone who killed his wife. He gave a dry lefty ideologue answer with no emotion. If in a debate, someone asked Obama what punishment he would seek for someone who raped one of his daughters, I bet he would say, "I will kill them with my own hands".