Wonder why Barack is taking the positions he has over the last couple of weeks (support for the compromise FISA bill, faith-based programs, gun control, death penalty, etc.) well here there ya go. Thinking of voting for Nader or just sitting it out? Then you are as stupid as they are -- the "mushy middle"

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-p...ulse-the-middle.

The Carlin quote in my signature says it all, and I have been posting desperately about this for the last 2 weeks. And I will continue to post it until November. I've seen us fail far too many times in presidential elections and I will do everything in my power to prevent another failure this time.

Yep, these are the people who we have to pander to in order to win the election. They are the dufus, uneducated, unthinking, morons in the middle. They make up the majority of the cannon-fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are the ones that vote against their own self interests. They are the ones who lose their jobs to NAFTA and corporate greed. They are the ones who go bankrupt because of medical bills. They are the ones who are losing their homes in the subprime mortgage crisis. They are the ones who can't afford college, and who's children are most hurt by no child left behind.

And they are the "king-makers". We do everything we can to help make their lives better, and they vote against us. Disgusting, isn't it?

BARACK HAS TO BUILD A BROAD COALITION, OR WE WILL LOSE IN NOVEMBER. And that means taking some positions that pander (or "appear" to pander) to these morons. Sorry folks, that's just the way it is. So hold your nose and hold your tongue, or we're going to blow it. Watch for how Barack positions these middle of the road positions (e.g. faith-based initiatives, death penalty, gun control, etc.) and realize, he's really not saying what he appears to be saying on the surface.

Yes, he's trying to fool them into voting for him. And he doesn't have to fool all of them, just enough to get more electoral votes than McCain. So look for him to take positions that are bizarre and seemingly contradict his progressive roots and expect him to take positions that surprise and shock -- we have to win some "moron" states and that's simply what he's got to do.

So put away your "angst" and concern and accept the facts that Barack has to accept, and give him the room he needs to win. Outside of this message board, maybe even consider just shutting the hell up!

(By the way, take Randi's lead on this, she's doing an excellent job!)

Remember McGovern in '72? Most of you are too young for that. How about Carter in '80? How about Dukakis in '88? How about Gore in '00. Great candidates, brilliant ideas, and all lost because we simply didn't understand that we had to let him move towards to the middle in order to win. Bill Clinton understood this, and guess what? He won! Republicans also "get it" and if we don't in 2008, we lose. Period.

Reverend Wright said it best when he stated that Obama says what he has to to get elected. He is a politician. change? Hardly

Read my other post where he is now backing off of his promise to remove troops immediately. He says he may have a different position after he visits Iraq. Wouldn't one think he should have visted BEFORE coming up with the plan.

There hasn't as much of a move as the narritive that the MSM is trying to create. AP completely droipped the ball on the "Face Baithed" initiative issue.

And there it is! As I've posted here already, the man has to get in office in order to make the changes we want and need. Even if we dont get that Joan of Arc moment that we all want to see, we should all understand that this is too important a race to lose. We've got Supreme Court, Federal Court, Justice Department, etc. positions to fill in the next years. Does ANYBODY want to see McSame make those appointments?

Peace

But he was never all that "left" to begin with.

Thats the truth. People have forgotten how far right the Democratic party has moved since the beginning of the Clinton era.

Peace

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle Is for Losers



By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted July 5, 2008.



Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.


Last Friday afternoon, the guests taking part in Sunday's roundtable discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos. One of the topics he raised was Obama's perceived move to the center, and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it. I talked about it over lunch with HuffPost's DC team, over dinner with friends, with the doorman at the hotel, and the driver on the way to the airport.


As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.


Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.


Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together":


More

Note to Ariana - he's always been a centrist and isn't moving anywhere.

I am concerned about Senator Obama's recent shift on the telecom (civil) immunity. As a constitutional scholar/professor, having promised earlier to filibuster any bill w/ immunity, any compromise on this basic premise of our democracy, dilutes his promise of Change. My understanding of Change which lead me to support Obama over Clinton in the primary was primarily a change that would restore all aspects of the Constitution which was violated by the Bush administration. The Obama 'brand' is consistant, uncompromising integrity.

My greatest concern is that his pledge for bipartisanship will lead him to recind his promise to have his Attorney General investigate & prosecute the Bush/Cheney/Rove for a long list of law-breaking. This will allow a future administration after 8 years to resume these activities.

Of course, he will retain most of the Democrats' vote, but as I watch his policies shift daily w/ dismay & caution, I see were it could affect the level of enthusiasm for volunteering & donations from his base if he diverts too far from his primary positions on the issues.

Why jeopardize a current "Win" in the polls by appealing to mythelogical "undecideds". I do not believe that after a long primary process where every state weighed in, that such undecided voters still exist. According to the raw voting numbers of these primaries, Obama's vote count + 50% of the Clinton vote count exceeds the count of all the republican primary votes cast for all the republicans combined in most states.

Pls write to Senator Obama's website to 'shift' back to his original message.

fact altho that has never been an easy sell.

I am concerned about Senator Obama's recent shift on the telecom (civil) immunity. As a constitutional scholar/professor, having promised earlier to filibuster any bill w/ immunity, any compromise on this basic premise of our democracy, dilutes his promise of Change. My understanding of Change which lead me to support Obama over Clinton in the primary was primarily a change that would restore all aspects of the Constitution which was violated by the Bush administration. The Obama 'brand' is consistant, uncompromising integrity.

My greatest concern is that his pledge for bipartisanship will lead him to recind his promise to have his Attorney General investigate & prosecute the Bush/Cheney/Rove for a long list of law-breaking. This will allow a future administration after 8 years to resume these activities.

Of course, he will retain most of the Democrats' vote, but as I watch his policies shift daily w/ dismay & caution, I see were it could affect the level of enthusiasm for volunteering & donations from his base if he diverts too far from his primary positions on the issues.

Why jeopardize a current "Win" in the polls by appealing to mythelogical "undecideds". I do not believe that after a long primary process where every state weighed in, that such undecided voters still exist. According to the raw voting numbers of these primaries, Obama's vote count + 50% of the Clinton vote count exceeds the count of all the republican primary votes cast for all the republicans combined in most states.

Pls write to Senator Obama staff to 'shift' back (later) to his original message/policies.

Whether you believe Obama to be moderate progressive reaching out to the center, or a centrist trying to woo the far right, one way or another he appears to be reaching right of his current position to broaden his base. I think he is doing this in an effort to assure his election in November. The tools he uses are very carefully worded (in most cases) definitions of his positions, sometimes repackaged so that they say what he has said all along but so that they now emphasize what is most attractive to those to the right of his position. Where before he marketed "Obama Plan A: with clean skies and the right to choose" he may now be repackaging the very same plans as "Obama Plan A: with faith and fiscal responsibility" in order to attract a different consumer. Same plan as before, but the emphasis is being placed on aspects of it which attract the right-wing shpooer and which may have been understated while aiming for the progressive market during the primaries.

So whether his move to 'his right' is a winning strategy is, to me, partly a question of whether he has overestimated his current support and their ability to understand and support his moves to win from here forward. Has he given the base he has enjoyed thus far too much credit in assuming they will see where he's going with this and hoping they will come along with him? The left is heavily populated by those who stand firm in their positions and Obama has embraced them during the primary. But now that he is within the embrace of those so firmly rooted in their positions how does he hope to move toward those on the right without either releasing that embrace or hoping to break those firmly rooted supporters from their foundations? That's the challenge he now faces. I agree that some marketing to the right would be effective in adding to the support he now enjoys, and the potential is there to expand his 5-9 point lead out to 20+ by doing so. But the left has claimed him and latched on to him in such a way that he may find himself without the freedom of movement necessary to achieve this. I'd certainly like to see less shooting ourselves in the foot electorally taking place on the left. But the commitment to fight the long hard fights and stay true to our goals is a characteristic of the left which should not be set aside lightly.

Ulitimately I don't know if he's headed the right way with this. I've spoken supportively of his new marketing plan, but the arguments against it are very compelling. While I continue to support the candidate I am less enamored with the campaign right now because I can see where those who appear to be shooting themselves in the foot are coming from. Maybe by shooting themselves in the foot they can free themself from their firm foundations and be free to follow Obama, or they will attract him back into their embrace and all will be better. I don't know.

Yeah people want to see what they wanna.

The middle is where it is at dude or dudette, the middle is where it is at. There is where the greatest good can be done for Merica.

The middle is the not-me's, the nimby's, the not-yet's and the i'm not ready's.

Fuck 'em, they can kiss my ass.

The only people who said he was a leftist were the liars on the right trying to paint him someone he isnt...

As much as we may want him to be left on certain issues, it is likely he will be more like Clinton than Kucinich, and that is what you have to get used to.

I will be both thrilled and proud to be able to say America has voted in an African American as President...

He will be a breath of fresh air, in comparison to what we have had 16 of the last 24 years.

Yeah but this kind of sentiment is what lands people like Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS and Condi as Sec of State. Being Black is not a qualification.



No argument, there.

I know it does or is or isnt, but still....wow, think about it...

i am impressed, arent you!!

Ehh.

I'll take that is a big YES !!



i.e. the best I am going to get, so I will take it

Take it from someone who has been doing this "first black by default" thing from birth to the present second, it's an overrated, crappy position that is imposed by third parties. And often dangerous.

People really need to move past it -- it's no privilege.

that's simply just not true randys. how many times did you ever hear his voting record was similar to hillary's but he was even more to the left of her? with the old board down obviously i am unable to prove it happened here but it happened everywhere and that i could prove as people thought i was ff my rocker saying he was more right then hillary. and these are obama supporters. die hard obama supporters.

My experience on other boards is closer to randys'. Usually by Paulite whackos and Hillary pitchforks. Then there are the couple people I ran across who put me on ignore because I wasn't flying the banner of hope and change as I guess they thought I should of.

Nuts.

I still think he is to to left of Hillary.

why would a hillary supporter who obviously has to be at least a wannabe liberal (i was a hillary supporter so no offense intended at all) think obama was a bigger liberal. that makes no sense. liberal is a good thing to hillary supporters in my experience.

lol does that make sense or do i need to reword it?

I think I get the gist of the question. But I don't entirely agree with the premise. Certainly some of Hillary's supporters came to her from the liberal angle. But others unashamedly seemed to be coming at it from the Lou Dobbsian/ Lieberman party angle of independent wanna bees who would like to walk away from "liberal" and "conservative" but not just admit to being centrists. That seems to me to be why she ran her primary campaign the way she did. She honestly thought that running in the middle was a winning strategy.

Has something to do with fear of reparations or sleeper muslim and reverse slavery or whatever.



Yeah, but not "too liberal", which Obama was somehow cast as.

interesting ~ i saw it as her pandering and not really fooling anyone lol.

now see the last sentence i agree was the right wing being well the right but the 1st sentence well see i missed the guilt thing. re sometimes as a canadian i miss the american hang ups (lol)

don't get me wrong ~ i still stand behind obamamanics think he was a better liberal then hillary but like all things there is more then 2 sides to a story.

Can't say there wasn't some of that involved. But I think after seeing the Democratic ranks swell in rejection of Bush policies she probably thought there were enough people in the Democratic base who would support conservative ideals because they had recently been Conservatives. Her mistake seems to be that there just weren't enough of those to trump a well organized activation of the Democratic grassroots. But it was a close race and she nearly prevailed with her tactic, so it can't be called an entirely bad idea.

I think it would be nice if someday America could come to realize that most opinions are very personal and individual and don't fit neatly into the catagories of "right" and "left".

For example, some people may feel that Americians have the right to own a firearm, but may believe in some form of gun control.

Some people may believe in a woman's right to choose, but oppose late term abortions unless it's the only way to save a woman's life.

O'Bama obviously believes that the Constitution should be followed when it comes to an individual's private communications, but understands the difficult position the current administration put the Telecom industry in.

The list goes on. You can highlight the part of your opinion that suits the venue or the moment in time.

This I feel strongly, and so do many Americans. O'Bama has actual opinions, and he speaks about them truthfully and we kind of have to deal with that. And, by the way, honesty IS the change he is bringing.