I don't think Obama is really "moving to the center" on FISA, NAFTA, guns, or even taxes" He is, to the contrary, being the authentic Obama: cautious, fairly risk-averse, willing to change his mind as facts (and sometimes political currents) warrant. The broad expanse of his policies remain center-left -- or left-center.
« Off To Colorado | Main | The General's Big Mouth » Discuss.30 Jun 2008 12:07 pm Comments (51)
He's always been center-left. More lefty than centrist, but not on the extreme. 
I think that's right. My sense of Obama is that he's generally pretty liberal on these issues AND, by both temperament and training, allergic to extreme certainty. He certainly showcased the former in the primary and the latter in the general, but I don't think that's a contradiction. Also, a special note on FISA -- I understand everyone's beef with him on that, but honestly, if you have a situation where the President is in pretty clear violation of the law, and you're unwilling to simply impeach him, the idea of remedying the situation by passing additional laws is frankly comical. I worry that the Bush years have led liberals to wrongly fetishize strong Congressional oversight. While Madison was of course true that the Constitution would be obviated if men were angels, and of course they ain't, the only way to ensure that the executive branch will stop shredding the constitution is to (a) impeach its resident and (b) elect better presidents in the future. Elections matter, and as long as we vest executive power in a single guy or gal, anything Congress does is only going to be as meaningful as that guy or gal's willingness to be bound by the same laws that govern you and me. The FISA problem was a failure of executive accountability, not a problem of insufficient amounts of statutory language. Amnesty for telecom officials is disappointing, but also utterly besides the point.
I agree-- I don't think he's running to the center, it's that his views on the slate of issues from the last two weeks are centrist in general. Read his books: his views on guns, capital punishment, taxes has always been consistent. His position on FISA is quite nuanced (typical Obama). For people to call him a flip-flopper is ultimately ridiculous.
I'm going to agree with Nate Silver while channeling Woody Paige when I say, "Look at the schedule!" Obama isn't moving anywhere, it's just that a few issues that he happens to have moderate, pragmatic views on happened to hit all at once. I do think the FISA thing may be more tactical than ideological, in that he's either trying to give the Blue Dogs "cover" in the House (since they are all up for re-election in November) while hoping he can kill it in the Senate (where the Dems have a huge electoral advantage) or he just thinks that the issue isn't worth expending political capital on. SCOTUS is done for the year, and Congress will probably slow down for the summer pretty soon, giving Obama time to organize for the fall.
This discussion tells us more about Marc Ambinder and his readers than it does about Barack Obama's politics. Obama is the most liberal United States Senator. He is to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. What more do you need to know? You guys are starting to believe your own liberal propaganda. You cannot be to the left of Obama.
I think Marc is right on with this point. He's not really flip flopping as much as changing his mind based on new info or he's advocating long held views that some are unaware of. For example, I disagree with Obama's criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision banning capital punishment for rape of a child. Many cited his disagreement as pandering but Andrew Sullivan's blog cited the fact that Obama had expressed support of capital punishment of child rapists two years ago in his book "The Audacity of Hope." So, instead of pandering, this was a case of his restating a long held view. As far as changing one's mind goes, I'm reminded of something that happened here in Michigan recently. I can't remember the exact details but the basics are that a Warren city councilman had complained for years about a practice of the Mayor's office but continued that practice after he was elected Mayor. He pointed out that after being elected he was privy to knowledge that he didn't have as a councilman and that info changed his mind about the practice.
"What more do you need to know?" Well, we'd kind of like to know why you cherry-pick one study which, as I recall, had two votes as the difference between the "most liberal" and 20th or so. Are you just completely unaware of the wide body of evidence (and other similar studies with much larger sample sizes) that he's roughly in the middle of current Democratic positions, or are you being willfully deceitful?
I agree with you overall, but I am very disappointed to see the Obama campaign join in the condemning of Wesley Clark. Why can't we discuss whether McCain's military experience makes him automatically qualified to be President? That is the extraorodinary claim that McCain's campaign is making, and it needs to be challenged. Clark was simply doing that -- saying that being a prisoner of war does not automatically make one a good president. Obama NEEDS people to raise that kind of issue, and should not be dissing those who do. He can simply say that questioning patriotism is off base, but discussing qualifications and presidential judgement is not. Clark did NOT question patriotism. I am beginning to think that there is a difference between compromise and tacking toward the center -- which are necessary -- and taking a soft, play it safe approach. This approach will lead Obama to defeat. Theda S.
The only one that seemed like an out of character stance was the one of the death penalty for child rape. Obama has previously expressed doubt that the death penalty and it seems bizarre to support a decision that would have a) made the death penalty more prevalent and b) instituted the death penalty in a case where the victim did not die. I honestly don't know where the opinion came from- whether a position he actually believes or something to make him look more centrist. The "looking centrist" is key here because as Marc has already pointed out, he is relatively centrist already. BTW, Mitch - Tell me which of Obama's positions are to the left of Sanders. Or are you just regurgitating right wing talking points?
I believe it is more appropriate to say he is shifting back toward the center now that the Primary season has concluded. By the same token, McCain did the same thing earlier in the spring after he secured the nomination. However, it did not seem like that much of a shift considering that his opponents in the Republican Primary were extremely far right.
The only one that seemed like an out of character stance was the one of the death penalty for child rape. Obama has previously expressed doubt that the death penalty and it seems bizarre to support a decision that would have a) made the death penalty more prevalent and b) instituted the death penalty in a case where the victim did not die. I honestly don't know where the opinion came from- whether a position he actually believes or something to make him look more centrist. John B -- Obama actually explicitly expressed support for the death penalty for child rapists in The Audacity of Hope. This isn't a new position of his.
Mitch, if you actually thought about what you said instead of digesting your propaganda whole you might not sound like such a robot. Go Google "the most liberal senator" and actually read a few things.
I am writing from the Left and I don't entirely agree. Oama might not go to DLC meetings, but he is failry centrist/moderate, in the mold of Clinton's third way. Beyond FISA and oither recent issues, the Iran debate last fall was examplary: If you recall, Obama was against the Kyl-Lieberman bill but IN FAVOR of labeling the guard a terrorist group.
Finally, a voice of reason. If you listened to the mainstream media, and the few factions unable to view Obama's latest stands in a context broader than their own, it would seem Obama is flipping as much as McCain. This is a perfect example of why education is so important. Our future generation of voters are being taught in the same vein as their parents; which is to think no further than outside instruction. Developing the mind to reason, question, and conclude is as essential to education as it is to becoming a productive citizen.
Thanks for the sanity. I thought the revolutionary thing about Obama was he wanted to find common ground, stop the demonizing, work together for solutions etc. How would that ever work with a far left agenda?
It's pretty hard to argue with Marc's point. Thursday, 27 Mar 2008 That is not good for US consumers and I don't think it's good for business long term. But, you know, one notion I want to dispel is the notion that somehow I'm opposed to free trade. I think it is important for us to have a trade regime. And I think it's good that China and India are growing. Ultimately they may be markets of ours and, you know what, there's just a human element to wanting to see billions of people scratch their way out of poverty. That is in our long-term interest." When Obama said in reference to NAFTA "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. [snip] Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," People took his "sometimes" to be a euphemism for "the primary season," when in fact "sometimes" meant "occasionally."
Thanks for pointing out what should be obvious but isn't, at least to the MSM. Other than FISA, Obama hasn't shifted positions on any of the issues he's being accused of shifting on (including public financing, IMO). There's almost a Pavlovian aspect to the post-primary coverage here, an unthinking, reflexive framing that is irritating to behold.
Unless I'm mistaken, in his speech today in Missouri, Obama repudiated Moveon.org's comments about Gen. Petraeus ( i.e., Gen. Betrayus) last year. It seems to me this is a pretty good indication he is trying to move away from the left.
Unless I'm mistaken, in his speech today in Missouri, Obama repudiated Moveon.org's comments about Gen. Petraeus ( i.e., Gen. Betrayus) last year. It seems to me this is a pretty good indication he is trying to move away from the left.
Dave- Given the arguments for the death penalty, applying it in non-capital crimes seem bizarre. The child rape case seems like a death penalty=revenge scenario.
Ambinder, you insufferable shitbag, you're a never-was joke of a journalist. Your affected nonpartisan pose is as irresponsible as it is sickening. Close your comments, please, so that you may more rapidly sink into the obscurity it deserves for your pigheaded refusal to allow casual readers to properly place your drivel in context with your bias.
Obama is far left, and all he's doing in changing his rhetoric is giving the press cover to *say* he's moving to the center. But all he does is read his policies off the teleprompter. There's no there, there.
John B, I think Dave and I both misspoke. Obama actually advocated the death penalty for the rape AND murder of a child, not rape alone. Here's how it was worded on Andrew Sullivan's blog http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/obama-on-the-de.html Obama's support for the execution of child rapists wasn't invented for the presidential election; it dates back to The Audacity of Hope, where he wrote: "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, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment." His longstanding opinion on the death penalty is a particularly nuanced one. He has opposed expanding the death penalty to include gang activity, for example, on the grounds that it would disproportionately punish men of color, but he supports the execution of especially egregious murderers who are clearly guilty.
FISA isn't a left-right issue. Look at Bob Barr. It's whether you favor the Constitution and the rule of law or view them as quaint and obsolete in the post-9/11 world. It's a pretty sad commentary on just how stupid we are as an electorate that Obama can't muster the courage to oppose such a horrendously un-American bill. We read that Obama's "tacking towards the center" and get reassured that he's not some wild-eyed revolutionary... even though only a wild-eyed revolutionary would think that granting the government such spying powers is a great idea. And of course it's a sad commentary on either Obama's legal mind (unlikely) or political instincts (ding ding ding!).
"Obama NEEDS people to raise that kind of issue, and should not be dissing those who do. He can simply say that questioning patriotism is off base, but discussing qualifications and presidential judgement is not. Clark did NOT question patriotism. I am beginning to think that there is a difference between compromise and tacking toward the center -- which are necessary -- and taking a soft, play it safe approach. This approach will lead Obama to defeat. Theda S. Posted by Theda Skocpol" Wow! Is that really Theda Skocpol? Is Marc aware that a major Hillary supporter is trashing Obama in his comments? Isn't that kind of a big deal? And is everyone aware of how much Obama is getting trashed in the Clintonite left for simply trying to move past this Wes Clark comment? Check out both Greg and Josh at TPM. It seems coordinated, considering it's patriotism day for the Obama campaign, although I don't believe in conspiracies, left or right, vast or narrow. Theda's post on Thurday at TPM Thursday only pushes my committment to non-conspiratorial thinking further. She does make some excellent points in that piece, but what exactly about "it's still June" do all the early left critics not get? Lordy, lordy, give him a little time. He's only had three weeks unencumbered. John McCain has had him teed up for three months, and has been fine-tuning his message day-in day-out. Remember, this thing only starts for non-junkies after Labor Day, and for non uber-junkies after the 4th. Right now sane people are not paying attention. Regular people are still giving the first non-white-male his due in their minds that he never got from a Clinton-entranced mainstream and elite online media establishment. All that said, the debates will be critical. Luckily, McCin has exhibited over-confidence in that arena, arrogantly challenging Obama to ten unmoderated town halls, then grandstanding on Wall St. Obama is where Bush was in 2000 on that score.
Cal:
To Mike Drew: Everything I have read from Theda Skocpol this election season has shown her to be quite critical of Hillary Clinton. I think you might be mistaken. Also, how is it that Obama's position is 'nuanced' on FISA. He has changed positions on this and a number of issues. That is fine, but let's not give him credit for things. Nuance does not equal changing positions for the general, sorry. If Obama is now nuanced, I guess McCain's position on Bush tax cuts is also now quite nuanced?!?
Careful, Marc, you'll ruin a very juicy new narrative that everyone is excited about. Next thing you know, you'll join the groups pointing out that Obama is doing better among Latinos and women and about the same as other Democratic nominees among uneducated white voters. Thinking is hard when you have a deadline.
Obama from the start has been all over the place politically. Does that seem like an insult? No way. We've been living in a time when people pride themselves on finding a little piece of territory on the left/right scale and sticking to it furiously, childishly, thoughtlessly. They're just people who've been successfully Roved, poor sods. One of Obama's attractions is his independent mind, the kind of ability to organize that presages a good presidency, along with the guts and ability to stand alone that leaders need. And wisdom, something we haven't seen much of lately. He's not part the wailing-'n'-moaning I-want-my-Maypo camp that the other Democratic candidate represented (whether on purpose or not); nor is he anywhere near the knuckle-dragging, mean-spirited, unscrupulous, morally-challenged right. Obama's a fiscal conservative, something we can't accuse the Republicans of since Reagan began to order those dinner plates and send his pretorian guard to Grenada. (Jeez! Why is it that Republicans only like to go overseas if they're accompanied by the entire US military and National Guard?) He's a social moderate in many ways. He respects people's rights to choose their own beliefs and he expects them to take responsibility for their actions. He listens. He's rational. He's a peace-and-social-justice guy from the inside out. And rarest of all, he's a grown-up. He treats the rest of us like grown-ups. He believes in the law as the foundation of self-governance. He's hardly flawless, but he's achieved a maturity that McCain, for all his gray hairs, will never achieve. I don't always agree with him, but he has my respect and my support. Where that support would evaporate is over the issue of the abuse of executive privilege, but we can't know what he's going to do about Bush's abuses until he gets into the White House. It would be good to hear some serious assurances from him on that issue. And no, I don't work for his campaign.
Perhaps Theda can clear this up. Theda Skocpol, were you or were you not a paid member of Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign?
I disagree a little. I think on FISA Obama is running the center quite deliberately. While I don't think his decision is the end of the world I do think that it is a deliberate attempt to not look liberal. Obama has not been consistently anti free trade, he attacked NAFTA in Ohio because there were few policy differences between Clinton and himself and she ought to have been vulnerable on this topic. I think that he is probably more skeptical of free trade than McCain whose record on the issue is pretty solidly free trade but many of his comments and choices of advisers suggest that he was playing to the crowd a little in OH and PA. On guns I think that he probably sides with the more liberal justices but he chose to take the courts judgment and see the silver lining in it of allowing restrictions but not a complete ban. While Obama was in favor of city wide bans he has not been in favor of more expansive bans so I don't think he has been inconsistent on this issue. For all the ego of Obama the campaigner Obama the policy maker is very humble. He seems to recognize the limits of what government can acomplish more than Hillary Clinton or even McCain with out believing that government is incapable of doing good.
I think this is basically correct. I also think that as something of an egghead, he doesn't like the politics of personal destruction in either direction. If 10% of the country thought I were a Muslim terrorist who hated America I'd probably feel the same way. Obama's also clearly a "get half a loaf now, but keep figuring out how to get the other half" guy, as exhibited by his votes for FISA, Ag bill, 2005 energy bill, etc.
I'm particularly moderate when considering all things politics and I don't find myself aligning with anyone in this election yet (although some of the more extreme policies scare me a bit on McCain's side as far as the economy and Iraq, but then again some of Obama's policies scare me on the economy as well). All that to say that I find it a bit frustrating that people act like children when it comes to politics. He said she said, blah blah blah.
Right, Obamanauts, it was the MSM that promised (partial list) to debate anytime anywhere, to amend NAFTA unilaterally, to aggressively pursue agreement on public financing, to meet the dictators without preconditions in the first year of office, to filibuster FISA rather than accept telecom immunity, to stand by Rev Wright as strongly as he would stand by the black community and his own white grandmother, to support traditional marriage, to support the DC gun ban... No flipping here - it's all the MSM! Is there anything you won't alternatively believe or forget depending on how it bears on your view of Obama? Leftist, centrist, cautious, revolutionary - whatever... If it looks more likely than not to serve his immediate political needs as he calculates them, I think that's about where you can expect him to end up. He's counting on you to forgive and forget - anything. Next up - Iraq! Unless oil drilling or Iran comes first. Do you have the slightest idea what as President he really would stand for on those issues, or for that matter on any other? "The world wants to be deceived. So, let it be deceived." - old Roman proverb
"Unless I'm mistaken, in his speech today in Missouri, Obama repudiated Moveon.org's comments about Gen. Petraeus ( i.e., Gen. Betrayus) last year." What a profile in courage for Obama to repudiate this attack several months after Moveon.org said them.
You far lefties need not fret . . if elected , he will move the country as far to the left as he is humanly able. You can tell when Obama is lying . . he moves his lips.
What's to discuss. It is pretty obvious.
How about we get to comment about McCain and the fact that Clark was right, even if you disagree with the tone. Fat joke.
Please God, I just want him to be President.
Marc, I'm not sure I understand your point about changing his mind when facts and political currents warrant. What "facts" about FISA or the Heller decision or NAFTA changed? In the primary, Obama promised to filibuster telecom immunity. He wins the primary, telecom immunity comes up, and he shifts because he no longer has to play to the liberal base. In the primary and previous elections, Obama supports restrictive gun control laws like the DC gun ban, saying that they are constitutional. He wins the primary, the Court rules the ban unconstitutional, and Obama shifts because he no longer has to play to the base. In the primary, Obama opposes NAFTA and argues that we may need to renegotiate it. He wins the primary and backs off the rhetoric (as even he admitted) because he no longer has to play to the base. So again, in these three instances, what "facts" or "political currents" changed? The left still opposes FISA and NAFTA, and supports gun control. The only thing that's changed is that Obama is no longer trying to win the left. He's trying to win the center. Thus, he's shifted to the center. That's called politics.
Marc, I'm not sure I understand your point about changing his mind when facts and political currents warrant. What "facts" about FISA or the Heller decision or NAFTA changed? In the primary, Obama promised to filibuster telecom immunity. He wins the primary, telecom immunity comes up, and he shifts because he no longer has to play to the liberal base. In the primary and previous elections, Obama supports restrictive gun control laws like the DC gun ban, saying that they are constitutional. He wins the primary, the Court rules the ban unconstitutional, and Obama shifts because he no longer has to play to the base. In the primary, Obama opposes NAFTA and argues that we may need to renegotiate it. He wins the primary and backs off the rhetoric (as even he admitted) because he no longer has to play to the base. So again, in these three instances, what "facts" or "political currents" changed? The left still opposes FISA and NAFTA, and supports gun control. The only thing that's changed is that Obama is no longer trying to win the left. He's trying to win the center. Thus, he's shifted to the center. That's called politics.
Marc, I'm not sure I understand your point about changing his mind when facts and political currents warrant. What "facts" about FISA or the Heller decision or NAFTA changed? In the primary, Obama promised to filibuster telecom immunity. He wins the primary, telecom immunity comes up, and he shifts because he no longer has to play to the liberal base. In the primary and previous elections, Obama supports restrictive gun control laws like the DC gun ban, saying that they are constitutional. He wins the primary, the Court rules the ban unconstitutional, and Obama shifts because he no longer has to play to the base. In the primary, Obama opposes NAFTA and argues that we may need to renegotiate it. He wins the primary and backs off the rhetoric (as even he admitted) because he no longer has to play to the base. So again, in these three instances, what "facts" or "political currents" changed? The left still opposes FISA and NAFTA, and supports gun control. The only thing that's changed is that Obama is no longer trying to win the left. He's trying to win the center. Thus, he's shifted to the center. That's called politics.
Honestly, this blog is awful. I'm sorry that probably counts as an ad hominem attack, but you peddle the lamest of conventional wisdom of anyone on the Atlantic blog. I won't be reading you anymore, FWIW.
Ambinder: you're a fat sniveling dolt. bloggers are supposed to be part of the solution, you're part of the problem. please stop.
Mr. Ambinder: You are a complete idiot. As Clark said, being a fighter pilot, or being shot down, clearly proves bravery and commitment to this country, but DOES NOT qualify one to be president. Period. This is so freaking simple, the lint in your belly button gets it. Somehow, you and the bulk of the folks who call themselves journalists and pundits and so on do not. You are all either clinically, severely retarded, or knowing, shameful perpetrators of idiotic bullshit designed to sway popular opinion to the right. Stating an obvious fact like Clark did is not an "insult." Or an attack. Or Swiftboating, or questioning McCain's service record, or any of that tripe. Sorry. It just isn't, here in Reality-Land. Your existence, and your babbling here, on the other hand, are insults. To this nation, to the very concept of rationality, and to our political future. Dear God, please make this dribbling idiocy stop. Please stop creating lunatic hissy-fits anytime someone has the gall to make a simple statement about reality. Please stop acting like a bunch of feces-tossing monkeys in your desperate effort to enable and perpetuate Republican incompetence, failure, stupidity and misrule. Go away. Please.
Ambinder totally hearts McCain. What a hack...
I don't know if our host is or was an Obama supporter or sympathizer, but I'd bet that the foully ill-mannered performance of Obama supporters, on one thread after another, has made him more open to taking a good look at the other candidate. As a general rule, when there's any doubt, whatever chastens snide brats is probably a good thing. Even if it makes heather cry.
Wes Clark should be dumped from teh Army whom he served badly. The Generals never wanted him to be a 4 star. Only his doing Clintons dirty work got him promoted over other more qualified officers. Why has his illegal actions at the WACO MASSACRE not been more discussed. He was the only officer who would break the law to have the US Military involved in a domestic operation on its own babies and women. And his actions as NATO commander were to let the French command our troops in the Kosovo actions, will we still have troops there. This guy is a disgrace to the military, and now our country. Where are the 527's and open discussion on this? Ron
obama is slaloming down the hill toward the presidency. He skiied to the left of Hillary and now further down the hill he is heading toward the middle of the run with McCain joining him from the right. he will slalom alot more to each side before he's reached the center bowl in November and so will McCain who kind of is an old-fashion telemark skier with thiose crazy turns of his).
Please open comments on your fantastic Biden fuck-up. It proves you just copy and paste at least.
Let's see if the shocking hack posts anything about this. And if he does, can he help himself to give 'context'. Sen. John McCain said that he is willing to stake his presidential campaign, as well as his political career, on his support for the war in Iraq. In an interview with reporters on the back of his campaign bus, the “Straight Talk Express” Monday afternoon, McCain said that even in retrospect he would still have voted to authorize the war, as he did in 2002.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Barack Obama is now to be considered center-left?
Thanks for giving me a good laugh!
Posted by JPM | June 30, 2008 12:29 PM