... or as at least one poster here calls him, a "centrist (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1347108-post12.html)." Did you know Obama had a diary with the Kossacks? Oh yes, and this is some of what he had to say (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165):


* Barack Obama's diary :: ::

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, [B]is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people...

... I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority...

...Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."

Let me translate, "cool it guys or we won't be able to get that progressive majority to enact our progressive agenda. We don't have to move to the middle, just tone it down until we can get control and move this country 'progressively' forward."

This guy is no moderate.

I don't think TexasParent is going to check this board relentlessly like you do on a daily basis. Give your huge ego some rest before it effects your heart and you end up with a thrombosis. Try to think hard, real hard, and see if there is anything positive you can post concerning John McCain. The McCain campaign had done irreversible horrendous damage to their candidate because of asinine negative efforts, not because of finances.

FYI... Obama's Supreme Move to the Center - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818334,00.html)

I don't think TexasParent is going to check this board relentlessly like you do on a daily basis. Give your huge ego some rest before it effects your heart and you end up with a thrombosis. Try to think hard, real hard, and see if there is anything positive you can post concerning John McCain. The McCain campaign had done irreversible horrendous damage to their candidate because of asinine negative efforts, not because of finances.

FYI... Obama's Supreme Move to the Center - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818334,00.html)

Yeah!!

What "progressive" agenda?

Notice how a former Harvard Law reviewer never bases appointments on strict interpretation of the law, on prior cases, or the Constitution but on an AGENDA.


Now that is scary!



Note in the TIME article


But Obama's sudden social centrism would sound more convincing in a different context. Since he wrapped up the primary earlier this month and began to concentrate on the independent and moderate swing voters so key in a general election, Obama has consistently moved to the middle



Obama made a calculated decision to move to the middle on some issues because he knows that the majority of Americans do not agree with a PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. And he can't win with just progressives voting for him.

I don't think TexasParent is going to check this board relentlessly like you do on a daily basis. Give your huge ego some rest before it effects your heart and you end up with a thrombosis. Try to think hard, real hard, and see if there is anything positive you can post concerning John McCain. The McCain campaign had done irreversible horrendous damage to their candidate because of asinine negative efforts, not because of finances.

FYI... Obama's Supreme Move to the Center - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818334,00.html)

I love how you dwell on the irrelevant. How often TexasParent visits is not my concern, the point made was, that Obama and the Democrats are "centrists" and that's a load of crap. Obama is perfecting (or trying to) the Trojan Horse campaign they ran in 2006 and you people are buying it. And as I mentioned before, you talking about someone else's ego is laughable.

Hey boys, how's that positive McCain post coming along??

So most of the public might be falling for Obama's tricks and politics... What's the big deal?? The same people fell for the BS George Bush spun through 2 elections and 8 years. In fact some if you are willing to fall for it again. Maybe that just makes you all idiots??

Skell, you hit upon a larger truth. The American pendulum swings back-and-forth between two major parties. In this case Dubya has shafted most of our public so severely it became worth a little political shakedown on the Pubs. I don't seriously consider any of our candidates, Obama or McCain, can repair the damage anytime soon. I do think though it's more likely to happen eventually with Obama, rather than McSame.

Hello Steve;

Well, we had a radical shift to the right that hasn't worked. I think the country is ready for a radical shift to the left. Who say's he's a centrist?

excon

Where's the positive McCain stuff??

A few things here, first I had to consider the alternatives, The Goracle and Lurch. 'Nuff said on that.

Besides the fact I'm a conservative and would never vote for the most liberal senator in congress, I have to consider the alternative now. Do I want someone who has - in spite of everyone's sudden flip-flop on their opinion of him - served his country honorably for most of his life, IS his own man, has the experience, has the character, has worked across party lines to get things done whether we liked it or not, won't try to take the country radically in one direction, knows what national security means, and is the most transparent of the two candidates. Or, do I vote for an illusion. I know what I'm getting with McCain and it isn't just more of the "McSame" as you much as you want everyone to believe that.

Obama has done nothing but talk pretty, has a whopping 140 some odd days of senate experience, a long history of radical associations, won't come clean about anything - in fact has put it off limits, can't keep his story straight on his big tax cuts, can't explain the math on how he'll give those tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes while promising a trillion dollars in new spending, and whose wife thinks he can fix our broken souls. And to boot, a vote for Obama is a vote to give complete control over our government to one party.

I think the choice is pretty darn clear, vote for someone who has the experience and integrity for the job or vote for someone because it feels good.

Snoozeweek's headline article last week (eligible for fantasy of the year awards ) is that Obama would govern from the center .

Meacham: We're a Conservative Country | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656)

I agree with Steve that this shift to the right is traditional Presidential election strategy. But clearly Obama studied the 2006 elections carefully and has been using it's template.

He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
He now says he opposes late-term abortion.
He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
He now says that he won't raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he'd eliminate the threshold entirely.
He claims he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine .
Now he says he's going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.Before the campaign he had firm deadline dates.

The fact is that the Congress will be setting the agenda for an Obama Presidency . Speaker Madam Mimi and Harry Reid have a long list of quasi-socialists "progressive" agendas that have been blocked by Republican resistance and in some cases by the very Blue Dog Democrats they enlisted to win in 2006 ,only to betray .
The only way the radical agenda will be blocked under an Obama Presidency (at least until 2010) would be a coalition of the Blue Dog Democrats and the remaining Republicans in the House and Senate.
That is not likely .

Under President Bush the jihadists have not attacked inside the US since 2001 . I'll take some McSame on that record .

Remember me mentioning voting for the illusion that is Obama?


Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/clinton-suggests-obama-uncertain-economic-crisis/)

Barack Obama cultivated the image of a cool and collected leader during the height of the economic crisis last month, when lawmakers on Capitol Hill scrambled to draft a workable bailout package after a meltdown on Wall Street.

And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."

But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

No one can fault the guy for seeking input from his advisors, but I want more from a president than a guy that figures out "how to sell it," especially one that calls his opponent "unsteady" on the same issue he himself doesn't understand. McCain has a long record of doing things instead of writing letters (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/29/obama-wrote-a-letter/) and selling himself.

Hello Steve:

I ain't looking for no moderation. I'm looking for radicalism.

excon

I still don't see any positive McCain posts...

But all the Obots know this election is about Obama.

You know why? Because all of McCains ad campaigns have made it that way. They don't say what he himself is going to do get this country out of the hole that it's in. They just bash Obama. Has he done any ads that he talks about himself and what he will do? Because I haven't seen one.

Well you see it's like this . McCain has a long public service history and what you see is what you get. His admirable public record is readily available .

Obama on the other hand has a paper thin resume and has succeeded in either shredding or otherwise keeping it from public perusal.

That is why the election is about Obama . We know where McCain stands.

Nope tom, that's not excuse for constant attack ads, no excuse at all. McCain's campaign was a vile piece of work.

I still don't see any positive McCain posts...

I sure thought my post at the top of page 2 was positive on McCain:


Do I want someone who has - in spite of everyone's sudden flip-flop on their opinion of him - served his country honorably for most of his life, IS his own man, has the experience, has the character, has worked across party lines to get things done whether we liked it or not, won't try to take the country radically in one direction, knows what national security means, and is the most transparent of the two candidates. Or, do I vote for an illusion.

Nope tom, that's not excuse for constant attack ads, no excuse at all. McCain's campaign was a vile piece of work.

You're a real piece of work, NK. Obama and the DNC have been attacking McCain from the day they knew he would be the nominee and they haven't stopped yet. Enough of that self-righteous hogwash.

You're a real piece of work, NK. Obama and the DNC have been attacking McCain from the day they knew he would be the nominee and they haven't stopped yet. Enough of that self-righteous hogwash.Nope you're wrong there as well. He responded to McCain's attack ads. About the "haven't stopped yet": McCain video on his own site continues the attacks while Obama makes a half-hour ad that never speaks of McCain.

Nope you're wrong there as well. He responded to McCain's attack ads.

You can imagine that all you want but it's BS. I've already posted elsewhere all of the DNC attacks in their emails and Mike Gehrke officially began the attacks on Jan. 9th with their assault on his "hundred years" remark and "third Bush term" after the New Hampshire primary:


During the whole course of the campaign, McCain lost ground among independents over his stubborn promise to deliver a third Bush term on the war in Iraq. On this video, McCain makes that promise again. He not only interrupted a voter's question telling him we should "make it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me," he told a reporter after the event that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 'a thousand years' or 'a million years,' as far as he was concerned."

They got the video from one of their "trackers," people they hired just to go to GOP campaign events to dig up dirt.


This is why I love my job - this video was shot by Alexis, one of our "trackers" for the Democratic Party. Every day, trackers like Alexis travel from campaign event to campaign event, quietly filming the Republican presidential candidates and posting it online.

The guy loves his job because he gets to hire people to help him smear Republicans.

Howard Dean 2/6/08:


From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he's promising nothing more than a third Bush term.

After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain's campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.

On immigration reform, he's run as far to the right as he can, aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party.

Howard Dean 2/13/08:


Don't be fooled, John McCain isn't a "maverick" at all. He's loved by the media, but he'll be a disaster for our country...

He's so bad that U.S. News and World Report recently revealed that the White House is thrilled to have John McCain picking up where they're leaving off...

John McCain gives George Bush the third term he always wanted.

Howard Dean 2/22/08:


It's like 1989 all over again -- John McCain has been caught in yet another ethics scandal...

You and I know the truth. We know that John McCain is no maverick; he's no reformer. He promises the same ethics that have defined Washington and the Republican Party for far too long...

The facts are clear: from Keating Five to today, throughout his 25 years in Washington John McCain has consistently taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from his special interest friends, flown on their corporate jets, and then turned around and tried to do favors for them. And he's surrounded himself with just the type of people he claims to fight against -- including Rick Davis, Charlie Black, and senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon.

McCain and the right-wing noise machine will do anything and say anything to win. Turning an ethics scandal into a fundraising opportunity is just the start, and exactly what you'd expect a team full of lobbyists to come up with.

Howard Dean 2/25/08:


There was a lot of talk last week about John McCain's blatant hypocrisy on ethics and integrity in Washington...

Using government programs when it's politically convenient and breaking the rules when it's not ... remind you of anyone?

Just like George Bush, John McCain thinks he's above the law. McCain poses as a reformer, but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him.

Joe Sandler, General Counsel for the DNC 2/26/08


Yesterday we filed a complaint with the FEC after John McCain decided to break the law by ignoring the rules laid out as part of the federal matching funds program...

John McCain abused the system ...

Thanks to you, this "maverick reformer" is feeling the pressure of his own hypocrisy. From staffing his campaign with a team of lobbyists to breaking campaign finance laws, his total lack of integrity has never been more clear.

It doesn't let up from there, NK, so don't give me that Obama was responding to McCain's attacks crap, McCain was attacked from the first primary on.

Post the ads on YouTube from Obama instead of these supposed emails.

Something +

Bridget Mccain The Wonder Child (http://www.encyclocentral.com/13865-Bridget_Mccain_The_Wonder_Child.html) :D


---------------------------------------------------

But back to the OP and away from the distraction that Obama has made a calculated move to the center in order to sell himself to moderates. Nice link Tom :)

Post the ads on youtube from Obama instead of these supposed emails.

Prove me wrong.

You know as well as I do that Obama attacks through his surrogates (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess28-2008aug28,0,2277714.story). Jesse Jackson even said why:


"He cannot hit back," said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a close friend and advisor to Obama. "He has to keep smiling. No one wants an angry African American man in the White House."

I hope you noticed the title of the LA Times article, "Obama leaves the attacks to surrogates."

Obama Surrogate Attacks McCain for Age, Cancer (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-surrogate.html)

Obama Surrogate, Wesley Clark Attacks McCain’s Military Service (http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/?p=2001)

Keating Five Member is Obama Surrogate (http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/06/keating_five_member_is_obama_surrogate?page=full)

Obama campaign to deploy surrogates to hit McCain's houses (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Obama_campaign_to_deploy_surrogates_to_hit_McCains _houses.html)

Female Obama Surrogates Go On Attack As One Dem Defects (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/the-battle-for-the-female_n_127153.html)

All this and more from the guy that complained that McCain "wasn't willing to say it to my face" over Ayers. What a hypocrite.

Still nothing positive about why to vote for John McCain. Geezers boys, you've helped bury your own candidate for at least six months now. The Obama campaign should had put some of you here on the payroll. Thank you. :)

But McCain IS old and does have cancer. In contrast, Obama is no redder than our current president.

It is true that Obama cannot hit back. But he doesn't need to--as must be obvious by now. And it's clear from his demeanor that he doesn't find the necessary restraint a challenge. I too thought for a while that he was just faking it, but I've decided he's actually got class. In contrast, McCain is famous for his impulsive temper.

I actually like Obama more now than I did 8 months ago. He's shown admirable calm and endurance.

Yawn,Complaints about negative advertising bores me. It's as American as apple pie

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/index.html

http://www.radaronline.com/photos//jefferson.jpg

http://www.radaronline.com/photos//teddy.jpg

OBama has had Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq... another outright distortion .

Now for why I'm voting for MCCain

Who do you want answering the phone at 3AM ?

McCain's whole adult life has been dealing with foreign policy issues. What has been forgotten in the last month with this panic over the economic downturn is that it is still a dangerous world. Economic cycles come and go ;and it can be argued that the Presidency has little influence on them anyway .But national security challenges are always there ;and the primary role of the President is to deal with them.

We still have a generational war ongoing with jihadistan . A potential nuclear Iran has to be dealt with ,as well as the stability of an already nuclear Pakistan . Russia looks to be emerging as a new challenge ;especially in the under-reported emerging alliances with the Bolivarians to the South .

Obama has not demonstrated to me that he can competently deal with these challenges . McCain as I said ;has spent his life understanding the complexities of national security .

In fact ;it has become normal for Obama to make an initial reaction that he shorty revises or modifies ,needs to clarify ,or outright contradicts.

McCain was way ahead of the curve when he was calling for a "surge " long before the President initiated it. Ironically it is the success of this policy that has taken Iraq off the radar as a campaign issue.
That is the primary reason for my supporting him.

Getting back to the economic issues. Neither candidate has demonstrated a deep understanding of the problems. Both candidates voted for the ridiculous bailout bill . But Obama has tapped and exploited the nonsense that McCain would be McSame .
What nonsense !Nothing could be further from the truth.

McCain's reputation as a " maverick "is not some gimmic . He earned it because he has been one of the most bi-paritisan Senators ;sponsoring many major bills with Democrat co-sponsors. The MSM before they became entranced by "the one "tapped into that aspect many many times because he represented a "burr in the saddle " to conservative Republicans.Obama ;despite his rhetoric has been at best a party hack.

McCain sees his role as a Teddy Roosevelt reformist Republican and he has the resume and record to prove that has been his centrist philosophy.
McCain would work for meaningful reform of both the business practices of the financial markets as well as ;and more importantly ;a meaningful reform of how the governments operates .Obama would conform to the bidding of Pelosi and Reid and their radical "progressive" agenda.

Still nothing positive about why to vote for John McCain. Geezers boys, you've helped bury your own candidate for at least six months now. The Obama campaign should had put some of you here on the payroll. Thank you. :)

You guys are blind. It may not have been detailed but posted positive on why to vote for McCain:


I have to consider the alternative now. Do I want someone who has - in spite of everyone's sudden flip-flop on their opinion of him - served his country honorably for most of his life, IS his own man, has the experience, has the character, has worked across party lines to get things done whether we liked it or not, won't try to take the country radically in one direction, knows what national security means, and is the most transparent of the two candidates. Or, do I vote for an illusion.

Here's a Youtube attack for you, NK, from a rally in Florida on yesterday. He not only attacked McCain and Palin, he attacked everyone that works hard to support their family and believes they should be able to decide how to direct their hard earned money as they see fit.

rbKQg_k3yUs


“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

That's a load of crap. Do you Obama supporters actually believe that the only way we can be charitable is to let the government manage our funds? I guess in the case of Joe Biden that might be true (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=), and actually it seems to be true of those who think government should do more (http://www.icnl.org/KNOWLEDGE/ijnl/vol9iss1/special_2.htm):


A second core value affecting charity shows up in the belief citizens have about the government's role in their lives. Some Americans (about a third) believe the government should do more to reduce income differences between the rich and poor – largely through higher taxation and social spending. Others (about 40 percent) do not favor greater forced income redistribution. This is a major difference in worldview – not just about taxation, but also about the perceived duty of individuals to take personal responsibility for themselves and others. This difference affects people's likelihood of voluntarily giving to charity. The General Social Survey shows that people who oppose government income redistribution donate four times as much money each year as do redistribution supporters.

Note that the charity gap is not due to anything the government is actually doing; rather, to what people think the government should be doing – in other words, nothing more than a political opinion. This fact throws a wrench into the traditional stereotype that conservatives in America are hardhearted while liberals are the compassionate ones. In the words of one common 2004 campaign yard sign in my town, "Bush Must Go! Human need, not corporate greed." However, the General Social Survey indicates that people who opine that government is "spending too little money on welfare" – not a viewpoint typically associated with George W. Bush's supposedly venal supporters – are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person than people who oppose greater welfare spending. Regardless of which view on welfare is superior, ask yourself this: who will personally do more for a poor person today?

Now we at least have a reason for Obama's wealth redistribution plan, to pry those dollars out of stingy liberals' hands. Little did Obama know he was referring to his own constituency as the ones who've made a virtue out of selfishness. Personally, I think that support for a man who wants to take more of my money and give it to someone else instead of allowing us to give of our own free will in the most efficient manner possible is the epitome of selfishness.

I'm sure one person can't answer the phone at 3AM correctly... wonder who it is??