Perhaps, but given McCain’s own reversals, he’s hardly in a position to draw a lot of attention to Obama’s turnarounds. Whichever route Obama took, he was going to get some criticism, but being accused of flip-flopping by a flip-flopper is a lot less effective than being accused of being soft on terror by a veteran.

Ask yourself the next question: which candidate, once elected, is more likely to scale back FISA, both in practical use, and even amending the law, such that it really does respect the 4th Amendment? In one respect, passing FISA actually makes it MORE important to elect Obama, because only he has any inclination to use the power of the Presidency to repect the 4th Amendment and modify FISA. He certainly can’t do that now from his position in the senate, but as President he could. Right?

Yes, this is true, but it also just reinforces the notion that Obama is not beholden to the far left, and so it undermines any actual criticism of Obama’s policies themselves. And of course it makes McCain incredibly vulnerable on his own, much more serious changes in policy stances. So I don’t see how McCain wins much without losing more back. Except to the degree that the press has McCain’s back on virtually all things anyway.

Pretty much. This is what you do when you’re the front runner: lots of ducking, weaving and avoiding giving the other guy any ammo. Should McCain close the gap in polling, then you’ll see the milquetoast routine go by the wayside.

Then again, McCain treats the GOP and conservatives in much the same way, which is how he built up his reputation as a “maverick” with and through the media: they are useful to him as foils for his own posturing as an “independent-minded” politician, but they are not worth fighting for when under attack from the other side.

But the main reason I supported Obama over Clinton is that Clinton, and her DLC allies, had spent 14 years running away from the Dukakis-in-a-Tank meme: too scared of appearing weak to ever fight against anything. This was a disastrous policy which enabled the worst excesses of the Bush administration. Even if there really wasn’t much difference between Obama and Clinton on policy matters, I thought there was a significant difference between their styles: that Obama’s handlers understood the importance of defying the worst accusations hurled at them by crazy right wing dopes. (The Philadelphia speech on race relations, for example, was not perfect – but it was much braver and more admirable than his throwing Wright under the bus several weeks later.)

Instead, instantly after winning the nomination, Obama has moved repeatedly to throw his more passionate supporters overboard. His denunciation of Clark (whatever one thinks of Clark’s prudence in making such comments) is despicable. HIs rush to embrace FISA is downright horrendous.

I had very few illusions about Obama, but it sounds like he managed to shatter even those. All I wanted was someone who, when attacked, would stand up straight and hit back. I guess that is too much to expect.

Agreed. I’m glad both parties could come together in a bipartisan manner to eviscerate the 4th amendment and hand large telecoms an early Christmas present/get out of jail & lawsuit free card. Poor Sen. Obama, he just had no *choice* in the matter, lest those mean ol’ Republicans say bad things about him. Come 2009, Obama is, of course, going to have no choice than to maintain a largeish number of troops in Iraq. His hands are tied, don’t you see?

Now this is just simply bizarre. Obama has said, repeatedly and consistently, that we will let facts on the ground guide his decision in this area, that he holds open the option of recommitting troops to Iraq to prevent genocide/humanitarian disaster, that he would not committ to having all troops out by 2013, that he would keep a “counter-terrorist strike force” in Iraq, etc. He has been saying such things for a very, very long time, so why this would strike anyone as some kind of thunderbolt from above is bizarre. He will greatly temper his previous anti-war sentiment in an effort to appear more centrist and mainstream. After all, what else is an antiwar voter to do, vote McCain? Nader? Barr? Please. The man knows his supporters better than they know themselves.

It would be devestating only if you have been under the impression that all of that is simply a smokescreen to avoid getting pegged as the second coming of George McGovern. If that was the case, his reversal on the FISA legislation should have clued you in that Obama is somewhat less than comitted to repudiating GWB and all his works, and is quite in favor of certain aspects of the current course of events. Even if, in his heart of hearts, he is committed to a full withdrawal, is there anything in Obama’s behavior as of late that would lead you to beleive that he would be willing to take such a political risk? The easiest course available is the one that Obama invariably takes. So it goes with FISA, so it will go with Iraq.

Disappointment generating machine, indeed. Will it affect most liberal/progressive voters from pulling the lever for Obama? Of course not. So a few Kos kids withhold donations as a matter of principle: Obama has his army of small doners locked in, and can generate more than enough revenue to run an aggressive campaign in the deepest red states, while McCain struggles with his paltry 84 mil in public funds.