Obama Undercuts His Brand

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of "flip-flopping" from conservatives.

The Times reports:

In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he did not complain...

..."I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute...

...And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama's campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.

The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.

The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call:

The switch is not without precedent. On a variety of issues, including gun control and campaign finance regulation, the presumptive Democratic nominee has shown himself willing to settle for incremental changes in the face of political reality rather than to hold out for the sweeping and uncompromising positions he initially stakes out.

But even some who should be his core constituents -- in the Democratic Party's progressive wing and the liberal blogosphere -- have taken his recent maneuvers as a wake-up call. They are warning the senator that in his quest to reach voters in the middle of the political spectrum, he risks depressing the enthusiasm of the voters who clinched the nomination for him.

"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."

Comments

[DakotaMinnesota]

I'm of the opinion of another here on HuffPo -- stop worrying about "Obama's Brand" and stop panicking about a few recent policy stances.

We cannot have right wing McCain waltz into office because of some paradox situation where people refuse to vote Obama because of a perceived shift away from the left and away from his brand of... Wait a minute, his brand was all about moving beyond the ideas of left and right and towards the idea of using common sense to make decisions, not prefabricated ideology. So he's not off-brand after all.

I believe Obama is going to fight for universal health care, green industry, and much stronger environmental standards when he becomes president. I believe he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts. And I believe he is going to initiate the safest most responsible withdrawal from Iraq possible as soon as possible.

He might have recently talked tough about Iran, which has legitimately gotten some people's defenses up, but I don't think any president in the next generation, especially Barack "Good Judgement" Obama, is going to lead us stupidly into another preemptive war the way Bush has. (Though Bush still has time to do that himself unless we speak up!)

Here's to less panic, more trust.

Obama '08
Google "Smedley Butler"

[AlisonChaynz]

Anyone who trusts a politician is a fool. The founders of this country designed our system of government the way they did precisely because they knew that politicians could NOT be trusted. That's kind of the point of this whole problem. If you trust Obama to do the right thing, then he takes a dump on the Constitution (like Bush has so often)... then what? Continue to trust the man who is helping destroy your rights? Shift your trust to another politician? What is needed here is not trust, but accountability. Making excuses for his 180 on FISA is not the way to go.

Judge politicians (and everyone else) by what they do - not what they say or what you hope they represent.

Obama still has time to get this right. My fingers are crossed....

[BlackWidowPilot]

General Butler was a true American patriot. We need a dozen Smedley Butlers these days after seven and a half years from Hell under the Busheviks and their "Gang of Pedophiles" cronies.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[jojojo]

I'd rather he move center and win than be "pure" and give it to the Republicans.

(Note: see Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Carter in 1980, Adlai Stevenson, etc. How much good did their moral high ground do them or us?)

[Keith52]

I agree. If we wanted Kucinich we should have voted for him. And then be prepared to lose the election because the far left will never win. God... first it was Barack is too idealistic to win. Now he's too practical? I don't know about you but I voted for what I thought was an intelligent centrist. So far, so good as far as I can see.

[heather11483]

+1

[LollieDotCom]

What a load of faux news bu-ll-sh-it.

Oh yeah, and ph-uck the ph-uck-ing word filter. What a bunch of pu-ss-ies that can't bear the site of an expletive. Give us a ph-uck-ing break. We're grown ups here. This isn't a church service you know.

[Furby]

You are 55 years old, and that's how you make a point? There are some good remedies out there for symptoms of menopause. Google 'em.

[monkette]

Actually, I think it's a small mind that needs to resort to words like you're attempting to sneak past the filter above. Only children need to use expletives to make their point.

[EarthToZoey]

I've been a fervent supporter of Obama and have been on track to contribute the maximum. I've frozen my donations until I see the "change we can believe in".

The argument that all candidates "move toward the center" doesn't hold water in this election. Sen. Obama could have the Presidency offered to him on a plate if he would show himself to be a CLEAR progressive antithesis to the Bush administration and his opponent, John McCain. Instead, he's teetering on the fence and pandering far more than necessary. He truly is the most progressive (according to his voting record and past achievements) but his current 'self' is not so.

He needs to live up to his core message of 'change' or risk losing the landslide victory he can potentially receive.

[TheBlackCat]

I've done the same. I'll still vote for him, given the alternative, but the purse strings are now closed.

[Keith52]

If change for you means slash and burn left wing liberalism and would put it all away and go home. I thought we were voting for someone who can bring parties together and get some good things done. That will not happen with deadlock idealism.

[A2MIChub]

Contrary to popular belief, it was Obama who began the attack on Hillary Clinton. In one of their many debates, he called her triangulating and poll-driven. "It just won't do" he said. I find it very amusing to see how triangulating and poll driven Barack Obama has become lately. No sonner than the day after he won the deleates necessary to cinch the nomination, he told the AIPAC "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided". It was a ridiculous statement and after realizing how controversial it was, he completely backtracked his own statements. .That's not change we can believe in. That's change we've seen before.

[Keith52]

A2MIChub, Huge difference between talking difference in political strategy and logic and talking about winning because you are black. Or not winning because you are black. Contrary to your blinders it was Clinton who started the personal attacks...

[JohnTalbutt]

You witnessed that entire campaign and still see it that way. Partner that wasn't racists innuendo. That was simple declarative racists statements.

Now what we would like to see from the Clintons is for them to go after McCain as they did Obama. So far the only thing they have on the record is praise for McCain.

Nontheless, I would have voted for her had she been the nominee.

[TianZi]

Without going into detail, let's just say I'm much less enthusiastic about voting for Obama than I had been.

He seems more the consummate political chameleon than passionate liberal reformer I'd imagined him to be.

If he voices support for the current Bush-Cheney illegal armed Special Ops incursions into Iran, that might push me pass the breaking point.

[Deaninphilly]

You'll have to wait until he wets his finger, sticks it up in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. Until then you won't hear too much from him.

[WalkaboutJones]

Most refreshing about the 852 debates was the chance for Obama to address issues like these---which he usually did with quite reasonable answers--levels of context that hadn't passed through the media filter. Without that since he wrapped the nomination, the tone has changed. The Obama campaign is making a huge mistake in not coming to a quick compromise on McCain's proposed townhall format. The Obama surrogates have been weak. They also appear largely stacked lately with ex-Clinton backers who don't seem up for the task. Obama should do some hard, issue-driven interviews. If they want to tustle with a Northwestern journalism alum, they can drop us a line at Walkabout Jones. www.walkaboutjones.com

[eXcommunicate]

I've contributed 3 times to Obama's primary campaign. I thought he had cajones. He certainly spoke truth to power many times. Sometimes he took chances. He looked like a guy who, although not as Left as I would wish, was certainly hard left of center. Sure, he would compromise when necessary, but I voted for this guy in order to take tough stances, not to bend and break at the lightest Republican touch. I'm starting to think my vote was WASTED. I should have contributed that money and my vote to Biden or Edwards - two guys who would fight the good fight. The fight I thought Obama started to show in the last few months of the primary. But maybe I was mistaken. He only fights when the chips are down, not on principle, but when he needs to save his own ass. Barack has certainly lost a lot of my respect over the past 2 weeks. I'm not saying he still can't re-earn my vote. He can do that by standing up for the principles we elected him for. If he does that over the next few months, then he has my vote, but right now it looks like I might be going Nader. No way I'd vote Grampa McGrumps or Bob McSpoiler Barr.

C'mon Barack. Make me believe again, man.

[NTO08]

Unfortunately, he used you and countless millions of others for money and for votes. Obama should know that those who enthusiastically and to some degree overzealously backed him were expecting him to be consistent and strong on key issues that matter to anyone who is really and honestly progressive, not just a day tripping progressive. Selling out was never in the cards, but it looks as though that is what he has done without shame.

[bogues]

Sen. Obama has not sold out and his real supporters, not those masquerading as such on this site, do understand that he must think in terms of all the people and not just those who agree with him completely. I am quite comfortable with his ability to see things as they are and then come up with real solutions that will actually work and not some pie-in-the-sky idea that will get votes. If you truly are an Obama fan, then stop being so easily manipulated by manifactured details. If you are not a fan, then may I invite you to come on board and play a part in putting our country back on track with a President who will be smart enough to keep himself informed and up to date on the issues that effect us all. He has the courage to change his thinking on any given subject, when new information warrants that change. This is what some strangely seem to think is betraying your convictions. On the contrary it is the sign of a great leader!

[steve12]

If you don't like Obama's support of the FISA bill, let him know at:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

I have read his reasons and although I remain a strong supporter, I strongly disagree with him on the FISA bill. Because of it, I'll probably not donate to his campaign this month, but I will in the future. You need to let his campaign hear your concerns.

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

Flip-flopping, PUH-LEEASEEEE. John McCain is the worst of the worst and the Democrats need to start driving that home fast. He was against tax cuts before he was for them. He was against Bush spending money "like a drunken sailor" but now it's peachy. He was against torture but now is for it. He said he would not work to overturn Roe v, Wade but now wants to. He says he wants to support veterans but won't sign onto a bill that does. He was against drilling in Anwar but now thinks it's great. WTF?? And his stance on immigration just depends on the group he's speaking to....pretty much like his opinions on any issue. In fact, is there ANY issue in the last twenty years, McCain hasn't changed his mind on??

[Hopefor08]

Senator Obama seems to be trying to act like Hillary Clinton did when she was campaigning. She was always sounding more like a republican. So now Obama is trying to act tough and strong when it comes to national defense. With so many people scared crazy by the Bush administration I don't know why our candidates think they have to act like this. Never the less, Senator Obama, is the one who will be more likely to use force only as a last resort. It is McCain, Lieberman and the other old republicans who surround McCain who will continue to be war first and non-stop. The choice is easy. We need more democrats in Congress and we need Senator Obama as our president.

[Heaphy]

This story is a perfect example of pundits making a mountain out of a molehill. Sober observers know that Barack Obama compromises when the issue is less than fundamental or unwinnable, and sticks to his core principles on the really important and winnable matters. That is the hallmark of a masterful politician and a leader. The Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment ruling is a perfect example. I am not a gun enthusiast, but the right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, for God's sake. What benefit would it be for Obama in the battleground states to criticize the court's reaffirmation of that right? The battle from here on is to maintain reasonable safeguards against dangerous people buying guns.
- Jim Heaphy

[StillIRise]

Thank you. I only wish that others could get beyond their personal angst to see the bigger picture. Senator Obama is running for the President of the United States, and now that the primary is over, this campaign has become a different challenge, beyond what most of us can even conceive. I may not agree with some of the postitions he has recently expressed, I probably don't understand the political complexities that have shaped these positions, and I may never know what's going on behind the scenes. But I do know that Senator Obama is a man of integrity, and I trust him to be the leader that he has represented himself to be. What I don't agree with, what I don't understand, and what I may never know has not diminished my support for him, nor will I ever be convinced that John McCain is a better choice.

[mcap56]

No one should be shocked to see a candidate moving a bit towards the middle after locking up the nomination. And...we all know the guns issue has cost us too many elections. Remember that Howard Dean had a great rating from the NRA. But....in his new push towards the middle, he risks making the same mistake that far too many democrats have made including Kerry and Gore. The democrats get so concerned about vulnerabilities to attacks that they end up taking positions that the majority of the country doesn't even support. It makes them look weak and they get attacked anyway. Telcom immunity isn't the issue here. Giving the government the right to spy on American citicizens, for 7 days without oversight, is a big deal. If he had come out and said that I don't support giving the goverment the right to tap your phones for no reason all while containers come in uninspected, cargo in commercial flights is unscreened, and we have no border policy, I think he would have scored points. He could have reminded some independants and republicans that it won't always be the republican party with the power to spy on our own citicizens. Rights need to be protected.

[meanguy]

wake up and smell the snake oil, people! if the guy can't stick to his principles while trying to win the presidency, what makes you think he will stick to them once he's in office and thinking mainly about being re-elected?

[JohnTalbutt]

I agree. Citizens in the U.S. have always been allowed personal firearms. In my homestate of N.C., the first law restricting the right was passed in 1836. It stated "persons of color" could not possess fire arms. That was the year they began brutally forcing the Cherokees (categorized as persons of color at the time) off their land.

[metys]

I don't mind compromises. And in fact this is in line with the bi-partisan message he had from the beginning.

But ...

I don't like to be talked to like an idiot. And what Obama is doing is precisely that ... talking to us like they were idiots.
I'd have been less resentful, had he done things the 'Wright-Episode1' way : " I know I said I will [insert promise here] but I trust the american people to understand that I can't at this moment follow this path because [insert REASONABLE reason here]. Your trust is important, and I urge you to understand that, for now, I know, as hard as it may seem, that this is the right thing to do".

Fair enough, maybe after his first Wright's candid and adult approach, he's been burned by the fact that it didn't resonate for all Americans. But I could care less ... he's the one that's supposed to have faith in us, inspire us to get to our better selves.

Reverting to the old politics that consist essentially in treating the public as a dumb cattle is an admission that he has no clue, no plan, and no guts to deliver on the hope he's promising.
That's what's disturbing.

I still believe he's the best candidate to pick for president, but the reason for that is "only" that he's the lesser of two weassels. Once again, we'll have to vote 'against' rather than 'for' something.

Sad ...

[beaves35]

With all due respect, I think you all were acting like dumb cattle, jumping on board with this guy before you know who he really was and what he was all about. "Change" is just a position a politician takes to win an election. It's the oldest trick in the book.
That being said, he is the nominee (presumpti­ve)...let'­s support him and give him a chance. Let's see what he can do!
This from a former Hillary supporter!

[ElkoJohn]

`
anybody for change ??
`

[pupbayer]

What are his core principles?

[meanguy]

getting elected

[luxou812]

Can Mrs. Clinton still get the nomination?

[MA4HRC]

No, but she can still be elected if you write her name in or urge her to run as the independent.

[Deaninphilly]

Actually she can. The nominee is chosen at the convention in August. So until that time all the delegates can still switch their votes over to HC if they so choose.

[goldenshaman]

Change you can't believe.
The puppet changes.
The puppeteer remains the same.

[Heaphy]

How absurd. Anyone who has taken a close look at Barack Obama's political career and presidential campaign knows that he is 100% in control. Yes, he has very capable advisers. But he is, in effect, the CEO. Support him or oppose him on his merits, but it is foolhardy to accuse him of being a puppet.
- Jim Heaphy

[Busterdawg]

What career?

Really, what career? It's been undistinguished. Nothing stands out. It's practically nonexistent.

[macaac]

Last CEO President was George W. Bush think about it!

[ElkoJohn]

`
35,000 highly paid lobbyists control the congress
if that ain't puppeteering
what is ??
`

[fti9999]

Just for the record.

Robert Novak before the 2nd Amendment decision had already discussed Obama's position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html

The basis for this flip flop attack has been totally undercut by his column. And we all know that Robert Novak is no friend of Obama. However, I know some in our party despise violence and guns. I get that. But let's not destroy Obama with false attacks. (The Republicans are going to do enough of that.)

Moreover, I know that some in the MSM want people in boxes. Obama the Messiah and McCain the Straight Talk Express. Neither is.

Barack's position on the 2nd Amendment was nuanced, continues to be, and as it should be.

We have to find some way to balance the right of individuals to have and own guns (for sport and defense) vs. the desire to reduce the number of young children who get shot on the playground from stray bullets*.

This is the urban vs. rural dilemma. If you live in a congested urban area, you have try to find that balance.

SCOTUS and Obama said the same thing.

Please we have an historic opportunity. Even the most liberal knows that Obama is going to be better than McCain, even Nader admitted that today.

Fight with him once he gets into office. Today, let's fight those who want to send our brothers and cousins to die in Iraq for oil and revenge!

Please!

[NTO08]

No...we will not let him bob and weave for more votes. Too many Dems have shown no backbone when it came to standing up for principles. Giving Obama a pass on FISA, NAFTA and the insane Supe Court ruling on 2nd Amendment is unacceptable.