Obama to America: Stuck in the Middle With You

In one of the most craftily sagacious moves in Barack Obama's continuing exhibition of deftness as serious pol and spot-on presidential contender and in a true triangulation gambit (can you say "Dick Morris"?), he's tacking to the center thus reminding middle America and Harriet Heartland that "I'm a gun lovin', God-fearin', death penalty promotin' sombitch. Yee haw." Some progressives' panties are not in a wad but a Gordian knot. Take it easy. Take a deep breath. He's doing the right thing. You're watching brilliance here. Let me 'splain.

Barry 44 may bowl a measly 37 compared to Bush 43, but he's dead-on with his bull's-eye comments about guns. (Cue Eastwood in full squint: "Make my day.") Time magazine reports that Obama was quoted as saying, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view." (Cue Larry the Cable Guy: "Get-R-Done.") Elitist, huh? Mr. Latte pansy, my butt. This is the new and improved Obama and some liberal psephological tyros are hiding under their bunk beds. Oh where, oh where has their Obama gone? Straight to the White House, baby. (Cue Lynyrd Skynyrd: "Sweet Home Alabama.") Obama's absolutely correct and for him to say anything else, and I mean anything else, would have been the death knell for him and his heretofore brilliant campaign. Come on, what's so unreasonable about American citizens being able to have guns at their homes to protect themselves. Pilates against a home-invasion burglar won't cut it, Tonto. (Cue theme from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.")

And when it comes to the Supremes' decision prohibiting the death penalty for individual crimes not involving the death of the victim, say, in CHILD RAPE?!, Barry proves he's no Barry Manilow. Obama freaks some "effete elites" with this beaut: "I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution." Yee-ha! (Cue theme from "Death Wish IV.") Remember Dukakis -- no, not Olympia, but Michael -- when he was asked whether he would support the idea of offing the killer of HIS WIFE, repeat, HIS WIFE!, he said no. Next to being soft on wife killers, your wife's killer, being tepid on the issue of child rapists makes wearing a funny tank helmet look like, well, wearing a funny tank helmet.

Now, the irony shouldn't escape anyone here and certainly not Michelle's old man: Every person exonerated from guilt so far and rescued from an eleventh hour visit with Old Sparky was tried and convicted under "narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances." And for the most part were African-American and poor. So Barack, with all due respect, puh-leeze. Didn't you work with inner-city Chicagoans and know something about unfairness and inequality, especially in criminal sentencing? But good for you, anyway. We know, we know; it had to be said. Poor McCain (oxymoron, anyone?), whilst walking around offering $300M for a new and improved Delco, dropping C-bombs on his C, and (rumored) yelling "Who ordered veal cutlet?" at inopportune moments, doesn't know what to say. The hoary and haggard "flip-flopper" line is as ancient as Hanoi Hilton jokes, and, moreover, when America agrees with what Barack's flip-flopped to, who cares?

But Holy Greg Palast, Batman! What's happened to our Obama? Your Obama? No, America's Obama. And that's the point that many so-called "political junkies" are missing, and I've been saying this since the get-go, causing some bloggers and blogosphere commenters and denizens to dissolve and spiral into additional apoplexy. And while we're at it, don't expect B.O. to countenance gay marriages or flag burning any time soon. Expect more and bigger flag pins and a few visits to shooting ranges. No, he won't start advocating a waterboarding ride at Six Flags, but what you'll start to see is that beautiful and elegant tack to the center (OK, it's aimed right, but center-bound) that is as old and axiomatic a move as McCain's ____ (insert favorite McCain geezer joke here).

When middle America - a term, by the way, which doesn't refer solely to corn porn sentimentalities, NASCAR, PBR and "Hee Haw" - is asked about what issues concern them, next to the obvious gas prices, the economy, health care, and the like, Joe Workboots worries about gun policies and the perception of a Pelosi-powered juggernaut sweeping down Main Street confiscating hearth-protection gats and hunting rifles. The anti-gun crowd, in their post-Brady (a true Reagan Republican) heyday, wanted to classify everything as an assault weapon - the greatest tautology since, well, "assault rifle." This scared many immeasurably and gave incredible power and influence to the NRA.

President Obama (start getting used to it) may have gotten Maggie's drawers with Reverend Wright, but he's hit a two-tap tight pattern on his "courageous" views of decrying child rape and supporting the outrageous notion that millions of Americans can continue protecting their homes as they have since time immemorial.

McCain, the only candidate old enough to have actually served in a militia, continues on with what his staff swears is a lucid campaign.

Comments

[roseytrebles]

This is what I have been suspecting in my unnerved heart for the past few days, and I'm so relieved to hear someone else say it. Thanks a lot; I think I can sleep now.

[jeanrenoir]

You're dead on. Remember, Obama didn't make a single unforced error of any consequence in the primary campaign. Bittergate came from a Clinton mole who'd obviously been trailing him from fund-raiser to fund-raiser to get her quote and out him on the Post. Rev. Wright not Obama's words but Wright's, and Obama handled Wright brilliantly, TWICE. So Obama was smart as could be, and effective as could be in the primaries; now, he's going to be the smartest presidential candidate the Dems have seen since Roosevelt. He makes Bill Clinton look retarded. When he chooses Jim Webb as his VP and Democratic Agnew attack dog, demolishing McCain's claim to be the heroic safe vote on terrorism and war, Obama's strategic circle will have closed, enveloping McCain and the Republican Party like a Venus Flytrap. Obama's simply too smart for the Grover Norquists of the world who've gotten way too confident against such inept candidates as Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and even Bill Clinton in '92, who was elected by Ross Perot, not by James Carville and Clinton's supposed political genius. David Brooks was right to sputter in the Times after Obama's financing decision that the Republicans have been total "saps" to think Obama's some "elitist" Chicago law professor (and, by the way, did you notice he's black?). McCain and the Republicans, after the debacle in Iraq and in the economy of the Bush years, are about to get the landslide against them they so richly deserve.

[angalcina]

Wow, I have been licking my wounds all weekend, feeling so miffed and betrayed, but your post opened my eyes. Maybe it even changed my mind, although the jury is still out for me right now, I DO have somethign to think about .Thanks for the post it was funny and interesting.

[Tane]

Fabulous post! It was spot on and fun to read to boot! Thanks for your wit and keen sense.

[walk0nwalls]

Why in your rhetoric do you have to equate progressive with femininity? It once more reinforces this left-right male-female gender split in characteristics and it's just ... well out-and-out wrong.

[karela]

Excellent post. Too many people seem to believe that being pragmatic/practical is a bad thing. That would probably explain why in the last forty years, and the last ten elections, the republicans have won seven of them. Is it better to sit in a room discussing the intellectual basis of political perfection or is it better to be part of the government that makes the laws we have to live under. Approximation is a fact of life and a fact of learning. You make a little progress every day. If you try to get it all at one time, you usually don't get anything. How do you eat an elephant? One Bite At A Time.

[Photofarm]

Your post should be called " How To Divide a Country "

What you are effectively endorsing is to move and change views to get elected, and then change to whatever you believed before you were elected. What this does is get a person elected with no mandate to govern, because they haven't actually proposed anything that voters can say " I voted for X because of his position on Y ".

[Ides]

1 out of 5 households has a gun in it. 1 out of 5 households votes to keep that gun. When half of your population doesn't bother to vote, you're forced to give the vocal few a disproportionate amount of attention.

And Barack Obama supported FISA but not the immunity. The legislation is weak all the way around. It claims to preserve the 4th amendment within the actual law, which means every court will have to interpret the constitutionality individually, and it prevents spying on US citizens or even spying on conversations where US citizens are expected to be part of. Furthermore, it limits the observance of calls to 90 days or until the specifically stated information the subpoena seeks is found.

It removes the year-long warrantless wiretapping from the Protect America Act and replaces it with week-long emergency powers. In this fuzzy and not particularly frightening milieu of laws which are nothing controversial or new, which may or may not be illegally abused further but not within the bounds of the law, it is hard to figure out what exactly is going on.

Now, if this is a battle over real fears, then that's a good discourse to have. But if it's a battle over slippery slopes, those arguments don't move me.

[Michale32086]

Incredible!!!

Someone who actually READ the new House FISA measures...

I salute you....

Michale.....

[Lemeritus]

"When half of your population doesn't bother to vote, you're forced to give the vocal few a disproportionate amount of attention."

An excellent point, Ides. I've often wondered how real and pervasive the "gun lovin', God-fearin', death penalty promotin' sombitch" center really is. Are these just the "vocal few"? And by catering to them, are we simply engaged in Death Wish fulfillment?

[Desiderata]

Is it far left to insist that our candidate at least not compromise the United States Constitution by voting in favor of FISA__and (wink wink) he'll make it right after he takes the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as President of the United States?

Yeah, there's wiggleroom in all those other issues, but is it drawing the line too thin to insist that my vote be earned by honoring the oath taken as a senator before mouthing those same words as President?

Voting for the Constitution by voting against this sham FISA bill would be really "kicking teeth" of the Bush Administration, not, in actuality, standing up to the left. Since when is standing up for the Constitution a left, right or center issue?

It is all American issue. To vote in favor of this piece of trash legislation to demonstrate political backbone achieves, instead, the opposite: political cowardice.

Is Obama just Hillary-lite, afterall?

[Michale32086]

OK, have to correct blatantly false information again...

>not compromise the United States Constitution
>by voting in favor of FISA

The new FISA measures do not compromise the US Constitution.

The new FISA measures do target Americans, ergo there cannot be any Constitutional conflicts.

The new FISA measures actually STRENGTHEN the 4th Amendment protections enjoyed by all Americans.

To paraphrase Kevin Bacon in A FEW GOOD MEN, "These are the facts. And they are {indisputable}"

Michale.....

[Pecola]

You meant "do not target Americans" I assume?

[Chillinout]

Good article, and yeah I untied my panties a few days ago.

[XME]

Great post. The goal is to get elected, and appealing to just the left (especially just the far left) will simply not be enough. The way I see it, he need to move towards the center during a general election, and those to the left need to either get over it or get used to the idea of a President McCain. I'll take a more "centered" Obama during a general election, and a President Obama in January, over the alternative any day!

[vernonbc]

He's not moving towards the middle. C'mon people. Do a little research and quit swallowing the MSM's bullpucky hook line and sinker. Check out what he's written about and speechified about since he first entered politics. You'll find he's always held these views and isn't moving his position anywhere.

[ZaneC]

Obama has never appealed to the far left. Indeed, one need not look far on the far-left pages to find scathing criticism of the candidate. Take Dissident Voice and Kasama, for example. While both have at least one post each discussing the potential merits of an Obama presidency, the overwhelming consesus among the comments to the articles and, in the case of the former, plethora of other posts on the topic is that he will simply serve the corporations and will bring about none of the change he supposedly represents. These criticisms can even be found as far back as Super Tuesday, maybe even earlier (I have not read through all of the archives). Besides, how different would a "centered" Obama be from a "centered" McCain? McCain will probably have to compromise his positions to appeal to the swing voters, as well.

[harriscrl3]

In my ipinion Barack Obama is non ideological he is a pragmatist. He was never a pure left candidate and if his supporters really think back they would realize this. His stance on the environment is pragamatic, his stance on energy is pragmatic, his stance on abortion is pragamatic. The progressive view on those issues just happen to be the pragmatic view. Global warming is a reality its supported by evidence something has to be done we cant ignore it. But even the environment issue is not totally a progressive approach he incorporates the free market and innovation in addressing global warming. To give another example of how pragamatic Obama is. In a conference a few days ago he mentioned that he is not a believer in govermnment for government sake. Rather his approach is there are some things that govermnment can do to foster prosperity but when they become a hindrance to prosperity they need to get out of the way. If they are not helping if they are not making things more efficient then they need to get out of the way. He believes in govermnent regulation but how it works is government comes up with the goals and its up to the business sector to decide how to implement them. He is not the traditional democrat that believes in big govermnent he believes in smart govermnent efficient government.

Carol

[ThirdSection]

Well, I'll just undo my panties from that Gordian knot...

Well done, Lionel! You said what I've been trying to say, but much more articulately.

[vernonbc]

Then you're both misinformed. Barack hasn't moved anywhere. He's long held these positions and they're well thought out and reasoned and pragmatic.

[RumiSouth]

"Corn porn"? Please correct this typo -- I think you meant "corn pone." A very different noun, sir.

Otherwise, a fantastic blog.

[Lemeritus]

Yet "corn porn" does make the mind run wild with possibility.

[WAstateliberal]

Get ready for the attack Lionel. Here it comes, in five, four, three, two, one.....

[strifeknot]

He's a simpering, witless drama queen.