Or let's put it this way... Arianna Huffington is warning Barack the centrist not to throw Barack the lib under the bus.

Arianna Huffington: Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/memo-to-obama-moving-to-t_b_110026.html)


The one thing that stands out that is really driving them nuts is his declared support for the FISA compromise.
Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program

This of course is a flip from the position he took in the primaries .

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Moveon.org is calling on Obama to honor his pledge to filibuster the compromise when it comes to a vote in the Senate
MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action (http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html)

I would advise them to not hold their breath . My guess is that he will find a way to skip the vote like he did last time when he was too busy campaigning for the Potomic primaries.

Yeah Im not happy about this. But what are you going to do vote for Mcain HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes . I am not a big fan of McCain's by any means .But Obama is a camillion.

Yeah Im not happy about this. but what are you gonna do vote for Mcain HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Um... yes.

If that angers you spitvenom theny you'll love this one

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L5FS00&show_article=1)

if that angers you spitvenom theny you'll love this one

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L5FS00&show_article=1)

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's... EVERYMAN!

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/blog_images/obama-superman.jpg

What a day!
I haven't even had time to deal with the disgusting Weasely Clarke's comments . But I did notice in Obama's patriotism speech he did manage a smack down of Moveon.org.'s General Betrayus snipe.


"most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.”


Is that a move to the center ;a sista soulja moment ,or did he really throw moveon.org under the bus ?

Evita is saying I told you so

if that angers you spitvenom theny you'll love this one

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L5FS00&show_article=1)


It is BS to hire or fire someone because of their religion. But I am not angered by either one of these decision's. He has to do what he needs to do to win. I look at Obama as just another Politician. I can see people getting angry if they didn't look at Obama as just another politician but he is. And if you are gullible enough to believe everything that comes out of a politician's mouth that is your own fault. Sadly I think a lot of people look at Obama as Superman which we all know isn't true. He is just a politician. But he is still better then a Republican!!

I look at Obama as just another Politician.

Me too . As I said ;I'm just watching the onion skin peeling away all the hype.

Crashing in Vietnam and being held and tortured is not a qualification to be President!! See #3!!

MCCAIN IS A TOTAL CAMELEON!
MCCAIN, ER MCBUSH, ***THE CAMELEON***

1. He opposed tax cuts to the wealthy; now supports them

2. Sponsored major campaign finalcial reform in a bill that bears his name; now against.

3. Was firmly against torture; now for torture.

4. Has been on both sides of the ethanol issue, for and against.

5. Has been on both sides of state promotion of the confederate flag; for and against.

6. Has been on both sides of overturning Roe v Wade; was against, now for.

7. Criticized religious right with comments like”agents of intolerance”; now sought
Support of Haggee and other right wing hatemongers.

8. Was against sending more troops to Iraq before he was for it.

9. Was against OFFSHORE DRILLING A MONTH AGO(May 08)NOW FOR
DRILLING OFF CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA

There are three pages of McCain flipflops, these are just some of them. :D

He's a piece of crap with no integrity whatsoever. He would do or say anything to be President.

Scum.

And Obama on Iraq: "Obama zigzags on Iraq [Pete Hegseth]


Recent reports and rumors have indicated that Senator Obama plans to aggressively move to the middle on Iraq in the coming months. This is a good political move for Obama, if only because he's finally starting to recognize reality. However, it's no surprise that he will continue to try and have it both ways: moderating his withdrawal language without giving any credit to surge/Petraeus advocates.

Take his speech yesterday in Unity, NH. Standing alongside Hillary, Obama said,

“We can follow a policy that doesn't change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it's time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq.”

This was the meat of his Iraq comments, lasting less than one minute.

Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal."
The Corner on National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjk1ODIwYTVjMjM4MDhiZWFmZTJkZDNmNTM1ZjlhMjc=)

If half of the speculative moves toward the middle become true for Obama, I wonder what the McCain camp will do?? If they (McCain campaign) distance themselves they stand a good chance of looking even more like the Bush admin, but if he stays or becomes more moderate the conservative Republican base will really be out of sorts this election.

Choux using Weasely Clarke's talking points again ? Of course he ran for President solely on his military experience. Oh yeah... he was a General so he was a decider.. . He had no respect from his peers ,his Sr. Officers ,and the people who served under him .One of his senior NATO commanders outright refused to follow his orders because they would've lead to WWIII . He was fired as NATO commander.. . but he is qualified to make comments about McCain's service ?

He's a piece of crap with no integrity whatsoever. He would do or say anything to be President.

Scum.

Such hatred...

Five years of *your fascist guys hatred and propaganda* I put up with.

You have scum running for President on the Fascist ticket... you get bent out of shape when I point that out.

Pathetic.

If you don't believe us then how about the Wall Street Journal... and if not them then Huffpo and the Kossak Markos Moulitsas himself .

Glen Greenwald at the "progressive " Salon Magazine details some of the problem that the nutroots are having with Obama:


The choices Obama makes about how he campaigns and the positions he takes are extremely consequential in how political issues in this country are perceived. In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following:

*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;

* announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;

* sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;

* repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);

* condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;

* defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";

* unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.

The Obama campaign's past two weeks - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/01/obama/index.html)


Here is the Wall Street Journal's observation that it is actually Obama who is "McSame" :


We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.
Bush's Third Term - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

Huffpo's Arianna Huffington warns Obama against tacking to the center :

In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating." Obama's reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"

Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or "amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/memo_to_obama_moving_to_the_mi.html)

Moulitsas the Kossack has decided to stop contributing to Obama's campaign. :

Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544)

The fallout continues (who does this Obama dude think he is, anyway?): USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080703/a_obama03.art.htm)

What will happen is that enough of his base support... mayby 6-8% will vote for Nader ,and some of the Evita supporters are definitely going to peel away and vote for McCain.

On the Republican side fewer than 3% will join Bob Barr . This could be 2000 all over again ;a dead heat decided by a swing state or 2 .

Here's an article from someone who was there with McCain:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html)

And no, tomder, Wesley Clark was right on! Don't take his words out of context and change what he said, like the media has been doing.

Here's an article from someone who was there with McCain:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html)

And no, tomder, Wesley Clark was right on! Don't take his words out of context and change what he said, like the media has been doing.Good link, thanks.

Moulitsas the Kossack has decided to stop contributing to Obama's campaign. :

Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544)

Nice work, tom. I hate to say it but Kos actually makes a little sense...


Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well (expletive deleted) you!

Here's an article from someone who was there with McCain:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html)

And no, tomder, Wesley Clark was right on! Don't take his words out of context and change what he said, like the media has been doing.

So McCain is a hot-headed old geezer who wants to fight a 100 year war in Iraq and whose service doesn't qualify him to be president. Butler has all the DNC talking points down pat.

That guy sounds like he resents McCain for getting the spotlight . Yes McCain was one of many... so what ? McCain did not come home from Nam and compare his fellow soldiers as descendants of Ghengi Khan like JF KERRY did ;so I don't quite get his resentment...
Especially when you consider that just 4 years ago Kerry made a big show of riding a military craft into Boston Harbor... saluting crisply to fellow Democrats and " reported for duty" .
I'd be willing to bet Phillip Butler voted for him anyway .
Since John McCain has never touted his time as a POW or in the Navy (except as his time as a Squadron Commander) as qualifications then indeed it was a cheap shot by Weasely Clark (who never came close to enduring anything like McCain's experience ).
Clark's comments are part of a greater effort by Dems like him and Jim Webb to diminish McCain's service. By the time they are finished those old charges of "the Manchurian Candidate" will be revived.

With Butler being a "peace and justice activist" for Veterans for Peace it's easy to see where the resentment comes from. This is a group that wants an immediate end to the Iraq war, ban military recruiters from public schools and "work with others to reduce US addiction to oil (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Board_resolutions_2007.vp.html) and so limit future wars" while saving the planet from global warming.

ban military recruiters from public schools

I wonder how Obama squares that position with his speech yesterday calling the nation to service ?


I am running for President, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines. Our country faces determined enemies abroad, and definitive challenges at home. But I have no doubt that in the face of these odds, people who love their country can change it. That is why I am running for President. That is why I'm determined to reach out – not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans who want to move in a new direction. And that is why I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate – I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.



This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program – this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.



There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values. The men and women of our military – from Fort Carson to Peterson Air Force base, from the Air Force Academy to the ROTC students here on campus – have signed up at a time when our troops face an ever-increasing load. Fighting a resurgent Taliban. Targeting al Qaeda. Persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq. Training foreign militaries. Delivering humanitarian relief. In this young century, our military has answered when called, even as that call has come too often. Through their commitment, their capability, and their courage they have done us all proud.



But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.



I think we have discovered another point of contention with his base of support .

Tom,

Did you catch the NY Times' scathing Independence Day editorial on Obama?


New and Not Improved (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Published: July 4, 2008

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

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

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

It's not Obama's fault though, blame Terry McAuliffe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-sutherland/obama-stay-the-course_b_111222.html).

It's not Obama's fault though, blame Terry McAuliffe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-sutherland/obama-stay-the-course_b_111222.html).

Lol the Clintonoid footprint !

Bloomberg notes that his drift to the center is difficult because of his voting record (as thin as it is )

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asZwMDvYWOPQ&refer=worldwide)

Here's an article from someone who was there with McCain:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html)

And no, tomder, Wesley Clark was right on! Don't take his words out of context and change what he said, like the media has been doing.

I really liked reading this link, thank you for it. I appreciate the men that have gone to war and endured more than I could even imagine. But, at the same time, I wouldn't vote for someone either just because they did. I sensed that Phillip is a straight up guy, but I htought he wanted to make it a point that McCain wasn't the only one who endured pain and torture, well geeze, I wasn't sure anyone said he was the only one. Knowing he is a hot head, well I suppose I wouldn't want a hot head by that red button either. But I also wouldn't want someone too weeny to push it either. So like I said before, this is a lose lose situation...

tom,

Did you catch the NY Times' scathing Independence Day editorial on Obama?
....
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play OLD POLITICAL GAMES.
.....

It's not Obama's fault though, blame Terry McAuliffe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-sutherland/obama-stay-the-course_b_111222.html).



What a statement!

Victor Davis Hanson goes so far as to identify Obama as the candidate who is the real McSame

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Barack W. Bush? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/barack_w_bush.html)

Victor Davis Hanson goes so far as to identify Obama as the candidate who is the real McSame

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Barack W. Bush? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/barack_w_bush.html)

"Or they think that Obama is changing so fast and so radically that it's hard to believe he really knows who he is -- or would be as president."

Ya think?

Surely you heard about Jesse Jackson telling us how he really feels (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFKGWxFJSX7dncY8DDfiWbeti-Jg) about Obama. I wonder how many other candid remarks we could get with a few open microphones around Obama apologists? Doesn't' much matter, no matter how disillusioned the talking heads get they're always quick to protect Obama's Teflon coating. At least Jesse got it right on what his candidacy is really all about in his mea culpa to Greta (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379901,00.html), "his commitment to make us feel better about ourselves."

Surely you heard about Jesse Jackson telling us how he really feels (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFKGWxFJSX7dncY8DDfiWbeti-Jg) about Obama. "

Excerpt from the article:

""I want to cut his nuts off," Jackson, a former associate of assassinated civil rights icon Martin Luther King, said, in comments which then prompted him to launch a torrent of apologies on cable television news shows."

I wonder where Rev Jesse picked up on that line? Oh! Yes! I remember now! That's the exact phrase his wife used when she found out about his extramarital affair that provided him another child. And guess what? That also resulted in Jesse launching a torrent of apologies. He's consistent if nothing else. The man will undermine anyone for attention. Years ago we had one of the nations longest strikes come to an end at the Old Frontier casino (now closed and demolished). Never once did I see him on the picket line. Yet magically the day the strike finally ended, there he was with microphone in face, speaking to the news media as if he was the super negotiator. Go figure. I haven't seen that cat once in Vegas since then either.

And of course we in NY (hymetown) have long been aware of the Rev's colorful off the cuff comments. Obama asked the Rev "don't you have a corporation to shake-down ? "

My question is :
Why isn't Secret Service investigating this obvious threat to a Presidential candidate ?

It would just waste more of our tax dollars when Congress and their sideshow intervenes for the attention, i.e. steroids.

It would just waste more of our tax dollars when Congress and their sideshow intervenes for the attention, i.e. steroids.

Like still investigating Plamegate and attorney firings...

Here's the deal with BO

He is like Robert Redford in 'The Candidate ' who after winning is so confused and so unsure of who he is asks his advisors; "what next ?"

He is like Robert Redford in 'The Candidate ' who after winning is so confused and so unsure of who he is asks his advisors; "what next ?"Actually you've described McCain.

Oops: there they go again... : “I'm disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can't even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this 'audacity of hope' stuff, it's blah, blah, blah." NYT: Obama supporters on left cry foul - The New York Times - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25656099)