Is Obama moving too far to the right?

Rush Limbaugh fired off a preemptive defensive volley through his announcing he would not accept a vice presidential running mate position with Barack Obama. Limbaugh, typically unknowingly, has inadvertently created a biting bit of mockery of Obama and his hard right swerve into a conservative stance.

Barack Obama has swerved so hard to the right he has his political race car cartwheeling into the far right conservative highway lane, and headed off the paved political highway onto the unpaved right shoulder typically reserved for wrecks and broke down vehicles.

Rush Limbaugh's inadvertent mockery is Obama has moved so far right, Limbaugh as a vice presidential running mate with Obama, would seem proper and right.

Our political game does require candidates, for any level of office, to periodically flip-flop on issues either in response to voter demands or to garner more votes from a candidate's opposing camp. However, savvy politicians never violate a core message of a political platform.

Barack Obama built his campaign on a message of change, a message of abandoning the old school way of politics. Today, Barack Obama is well proving he is a typical old school politician who is not affording a hope for change. Barack Obama has violated his basic party platform.

Violating the trust of Americans, violating the hope of Americans, is a sure bet of losing an election. Obama, through his own words, through his own actions, has doomed his run for presidency; Obama has violated his most scared core message of "Change We Can Believe In."

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

No matter what he says or does, the racists will find something to spew. I don't know why they trot onto boards where they are mocked and laughed at spewing the McBush agenda, no one here is going to be voting for McBush other than Kiralynne the troll gurl, who really needs to be banned.

He's getting some bad council from his advisors, telling him things like elections are won from the center, and you cant be precieved as too liberal. But the fact is, those that think that about him. Their mind wont change regaurdless of his position switching. He should galvanize his base, and take some strong stands, take a few risks. I hope he stops listening to these advisors. They are advising him away from what won him his support. Dont pander, its very un-becoming to a brotha of his intellegence

I agree Charles, this whole myth that you have to be in the center to win is just that a myth. He had better start doing what he does best, keeping it real and showing that he is not the typical DC insider out for the rich.

Charles writes, "He's getting some bad council from his advisors...."

Most certainly. Obama is slowly eroding away his committed base support voters. Some of his supporters are expressing anger within the Obama web site. Some democrat politicians are questioning his sincerity. Our news media is beginning to critique Obama, severely.

Seeds of doubt are being cast, and those seeds will sprout and grow.

Obama, as a person, lacks focus. He cannot keep his mind trained on a cohesive goal. We teachers call this "bird walking" which is to aimlessly walk about without focus on topic during lecture.

During a lecture, or a political speech, a main theme should be woven, should be interlaced throughout a lecture topic or speech topic. Obama and his inability to focus is well exemplified by his flubbed Grand Hyatt speech of late.

Obama had a goal of raising funds to help retire Clinton's campaign debt. Under each chair at the Grand Hyatt, an envelope is provided to make a contribution to Clinton's campaign fund. This is a critical event, an event to help unify the democratic party and to win over Clinton support. This is not a topic which can be easily forgotten; this topic should have been foremost in Obama's mind while giving his speech.

Obama, being scatter-brained, forgot. He needed to come back on stage after closing of this event to ask for donations to the Clinton campaign fund.

During his speech, if Obama was of good mind and of good focus, he would have woven this need for Clinton contributions throughout his speech. This is an effective technique of driving a point home in the minds of listeners. Most critical, making the most of his speech to help Clinton would help ensure Clinton giving her support to Obama, fully, and Obama most certainly needs Clinton’s support; he will lose the election without her.

Obama really messed up. He cast himself as an airhead and, most likely, angered Clinton. This is not a type of mistake Hillary Clinton would make; she is very focused.

Same notions apply to Obama violating his core message and violating the trust of his core supporters. Obama is unable to remain focused on his core party platform theme which raises justified doubts about his sincerity.

This is costing him votes; he is backsliding in polls.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

Obama voted YES on the surveillance bill which more or less kills the fourth amendment. If this is not proof that Obama is on the right then I dont know what it would take to convince folk that he is not the one for president. There is nothing progressive or liberal about Obama. Charles you hit the nail on the head when you said he is getting bad advice. Obviously its his personal ambition to get into the white house. He has no intention to change the direction in which the nation is going. So much for the Messiah.

Ya'll make me laugh sometimes..."personal ambition driving Obama's push to the White House..." Well...duh?!??!? Maybe it's time for people to realize that Obama is what he is...a poliTICIAN!!!! (ok, you'll be alright). The best politicians are the ones who make you believe they are not. I guess Obama is not doing well on that front lately, but this is to be expected. I have NO problems with any of the moves that Obama is making. Matter of fact, to me, he needs to be out campaigning a little harder and drawing more contrasts with McCain/Bush. There is NO way in heaven, earth or hell that a far left, black politician with a Muslim name, etc. is getting elected without making a great number of white folks feel comfortable about the candidate. Ya'll, to be in power you gotta win elections. If you're looking for someone who is solely about principle and not about politics, go find a priest or pastor. Obama has only one goal and that's to win in November. This country can't afford to have one more day of Bush/Republican policies. The White House has caused great shame for many decades to come for our great country...and Obama knows he must do everything he can to win in order to fumigate the effects of a failed presidency. God bless him...

This site needs to be fumigated of Purl Gurl.

@ lhs: I know it may be hard, but just ignore Purl Gurl. Seriously. I don't read any of her/his posts. Just post your thoughts and all is well...

Ban the racist troll purl hurl.

Wow...I see some of you would offer an excuse for Obama even if he were to say that Affirmative Action was a mistake, Roe V Wade got it wrong and the suffrage movement did more harm than good. As long as we get a brotha into the white house, right?? It's all good as long as that happens, right??? How much good has Clarence Thomas done for the community in his rarified position as a US Supreme Court judge. Clarence was no one's Thurgood Marshall, but we celebrated his assent to power, and then became pissed when he sought to judicially dismantle our people's hard fought for progress. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama is comepletely akin to that sell-out, but voting for FISA is a very hard one to swallow. Most of you who support Mr. Obama w/o question, probably don't even realize how huge an infringement on our right as citizens to privacy, that bill is. By the way, Hillary voted against it and the President is anxiously waiting to sign it into law. Anything that Bush is that excited for is clearly wrong. No other analysis of the specific bill is even needed. If he wants it, it's a mistake. I'm now thinking that our community's embrace of Obama over Hillary, which to a large degree is how he secured the nomination, was a mistake as well. No, I'm still not voting for McCain, but damn, who knew that we would be back to voting for the lesser of two evils???

@ Langston: When did Obama start saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned or that Affirmative Action is wrong? I musta missed that somewhere. The fact is that the American public does NOT care about FISA. I know there are legitimate concerns about privacy rights and the 4th amendment, but there are many Americans who do not mind giving up certain rights in exchange for security (at least that's how the argument goes...I don't buy it personally, but hey). Also, you do nothing in your argument to mention Clarence Thomas. The fact is that Thomas was always conservative in his views and most black folks overlooked this. Obama has agreed to the FISA bill and all of a sudden I should start worrying about the end to Affirmative Action?!?? The point is that there will be several things Obama does to broaden his appeal and/or to strengthen an image that he's weak on national security issues, etc. Anyone in his position would do that...must do that. My support of Obama is not about him being a black candidate, although it is an added bonus for me. To me, he represents most of the views I support. Although I will criticize him when needed, I have never been blind to the fact that he is...just a politician...a very good one at that. The left, over FISA, can go off the cliff like the far right over single issues such as abortion, gay bashing, guns, etc. if it wants to. If so, then we'll be looking at another 4 years of Bush...err...McCain... If you or anyone is looking for a real progressive candidate who is "pure" on issues, then Nader may be for you. However, to those of us looking to rid the nation of Bush/Republican policies and actually win an election, we'll gladly vote for Obama.

Ron, clearly you can identify sarcasm when presented in text...I did say that Obama was in no way "comparably" to the right of most important issues in the way that Thomas is. The point there was simply to illustrate what I view as blind devotion to Obama based largely upon racial pride and using Thomas as an example of how such devotion can have devastatingly negative consequences. Your points are well-articulated though, as were mine, so I'll leave it at that.

Considering that only 17% of Americans identify as liberal and over 40% identify as centrist....I think the man is smart. Liberals need to chill out and realize that the man will be president of ALL of the USA.....not just the left. This talk of Obama drifting to the right plays right into the hand of the McCain playbook. People need to be realists.

Although it might be difficult to see him amidst all the crowd fanfare, he is there _ he being Barack Obama. And slowly he is moving to the center. The center? Yes the center, where all expected him to move and new he would move. Of course the left wing media, who also knew he would move there, denied it and attacked all who said he would move only in the end to once again eat crow and report he is moving. What is the big significance on moving to the center? Well the center is where most voters, mainly the ever coveted Reagan Democrats reside. If you want to win an election, especially a Democratic candidate, you best find yourself in the center. Just ask Billy boy (former President Bill Clinton). By moving to the center is Obama flip flopping? While all candidates flip flop (including John McCain), it is important to point this matter out in relations to Obama who billed himself as a candidate of change and hope. And more so, because of his position on the Iraq War. Throughout the primary he consistently maintained rather sternly that he would pull our troops out of the country immediately, with in days of his inauguration he had said. His stance almost became a central focus of his campaign. If you will recall one of this foreign policy advisers even said Barack Obama knew what he was saying on troop withdrawal (within days of the inauguration) would be reversed if he became the nominee, as it was unrealistic. This same adviser was asked to leave his staff after making unkind remarks about his opponent Hillary Clinton. Some may say he isn't flip flopping but seeing the issues differently. Perhaps and if this is the case, what does it have to say for his judgment, another central theme of his campaign. It seems, and is becoming clear that the great communicator is a politician after all. Other significant positions he was against but now supports: 1) Gun control(supports Supreme Court's ruling allowing citizens to bear arms) 2) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (wire-tapping law in favor of) 3) Fundrasing during general election and not receiving government matching funds 4) Wearing the American flag on his lapel 5) NAFTA in its current form as created by former President Bill Clinton(doesn't want to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA) "and we are not saved..."

As a fervent Obama supporter through the primaries, what is most disturbing to me is the realization that this guy may not have convictions. Bush, like him or not, showed that Americans appreciate a person who has beliefs (reasonable ones at least) and sticks by them. Americans don't expect Obama to be on the popular side of every issue. All politicians have some room to differ with their constituents -- just not too deeply and not too often. FISA was a bill on which Obama could have taken a principled stand with very little, if any, political cost. Furthermore, the guy is a constitutional scholar (or is supposed to be). Why would a constitutional scholar vote for a law enabling spying on Americans without warrants? The would-be president voting for an unconstitutional law is troubling.

Can Obama do anything right in the views of you people? One stance he is too liberal, the other he is moving too much to the right. Boy! He has my prayers. Let me remind you that Bush's legacy is one where he would never change his position on anything--- whether he knew it was wrong or not. Given the current climate of this country, Is this the type of president you want? If I was advising Barack I would give him the same advice my grandmother told me, " Baby, you can never please people- no matter what you do, they will always have something to say-- some just because they wish they were you, some just because they long for a world of confusion, and some because they genuinely care about you." I recommend Barack listen to the group of the latter and continue to do as he is doing---Having someone with this type of leadership style is refreshing and a welcome change.

We have a sage saying in my native tongue,

"Hokma haiyukpulo apat illi mako ishshi mat kana mako allikchi he ikithano."

Best interpretation I can provide for English speakers is, "If a child accepts poisonous herbs, he will never be able to heal his people."

This is a partial synopsis of a very long traditional story stated in a short sentence, a story about Choctaw children being selected then presented with a knife, poisonous herbs and healing herbs. Depending on which is selected, this child will go on to inadvertently kill his people, inadvertently poison minds and spirits of his people, or will become a wise healer of his people. This is a test of quality of spirit.

Obama has accepted this poison of pandering and special interests. Obama has accepted this poison of not being a truth speaker, of not keeping his word. Obama has accepted this poison of attaining power through trickery and deceit. Obama can never help his people; he is tainted, he is poison. Obama's mind is no longer his. Obama is not of one mind with our peoples.

Obama accepted the poisonous herbs, he can never be a healer.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

I think that it is not about left or right; in that instance he would be allowing others to define him. It is about authenticity. This is his key. Ultimately people vote for the man and not the policy. The question now is can we still thrust and see him as an agent of change. Yes, but he has to get back to doing what he does best connect with the people. He cannot afford to repeat Hilary's mistake i.e. rest on his laurels. He should not get pulled into a personal tit for tat with Mc Cain but be gracious move forward and come back to the McCain/Bush /Cheney /Rumsfelt/Rove/Libby policies and not the man. Speak to the issues and be more proactive, he has to find his voice with enthusiasm but without rancor. He must frame the issues of the debate. George Bush yes but even more we need to change direction by reclaiming our past glory JFKennedy and RFK and the King Legacy.

good point(s) langston. the blind devotion to obama will be our downfall.

Of all the accusations against Obama flip floping, I think the most serious is one with respect to the state's infringement on individuals' privacy.

But was he ever against signing the Act at any point previously? Or are some lefties now only dissapointed because THEY never expected or wanted him to sign Bill? Because, if he always signalled support for the Bill then it would be consistant of him to have signed in support of it.

I think Keith or his assistants must draw up a good list of a number of issues, and with evidence trace/analyse Obama's stance on them for at least the LAST year, during and through which time the man was running and then was premptively nominated

I wish Rev. Lowery could speak on a national platform to set everyone straight on the game. I don't know why people are getting brand new as if they think its changed. Obama isn't playing checkers folks, he's playing chess and his strategy is working.

I can say that I have not followed the FISA debate as closely as I should. However, I must respond to this notion that this bill infringes on our rights. I welcome being corrected, but the current FISA bill does not allow the president to simply spy on citizens. There is now a requirement that forces the office of the president to do what he did not--follow the law. That is, the office of the president nor any telecommunication companies will be able to supersede the authority of the FISA courts which is what they both did in the past. The controversy is related to the notion that it grants retroactive immunity to telecomm companies that cooperated with Bush several years ago. That means that they will be free from prosecution. Although a hard pill to swallow, it would seem that if the concern is over our rights, this protects them. Democrats just will not have the moment of "comeuppance" we were looking for. So what exactly are we upset about? That he voted for a bill requiring the president to go through the FISA courts or that it grants retroactive immunity to telecomm companies? Which is most important? Fact check: Obama has always supported the right to bear arms. He also supported the right for jurisdictions (which the supreme court agreed) to place limitations on gun ownership. Wearing the flag pin? It's such a small issue signifying nothing. Why not just put the damn thing on? It's akin to asking Bush to attend a NAACP event although he's always declined. Bush declines again but based on public outcry, he then accepts the invite. Disingenous? Yeah it is. Something to piss a fit about. Not hardly.

"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I am one of the few Members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. Based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the inspectors general report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, Members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about these activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of all Americans. If we grant these new powers to the Government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was. Of that, I am sure."

- Senator Hatch (UTAH)
- Congressional Record, July 9, 2008
- Page S6459

These warrantless searches are not a problem. You only need to remind yourself, whenever you use a telephone, our government is listening. This should not prove a problem for any American.

Barack Obama voted yea. Hillary Clinton voted nay.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

I said I wouldn't read any of Purl Gurl's comments, but I must correct one major error. Please note that the quote is NOT from Senator Hatch but from Senator Feingold (D-Wisconsin). You can read the link to this here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/11/01545/3460/430/549785 @Midwest Guy: Agree 100%. As long as there is some oversight to the program and the courts are used, I have little problem with the program. Plus, I have a suspicion that there is a reason, not apparent, as to why Obama supported it. Like they say in church, "we'll understand it better by and by."

RonC, anyone with any degree of knowledge concerning current politics knew darn well that Orrin Hatch did not, would not, could not speak those words...but thank you for further exposing the lack of credibility with Purl Girl. We cant just chalk that up to a "typo"....Feingold is really not similar to Hatch at all.

Ron C writes, "...that the quote is NOT from Senator Hatch but from Senator Feingold...."

Thank you for correcting my mistake. Clearly I pulled the wrong name from the congressional record; I misread who had the senate floor at the time. Reading congressional records is so very boring. I am not sure why I even read those records.

Date and page number are correct. Comments by "Feingold" remain the same.

So, who is enjoying eavesdropping on your extramartial wild affair with your lover?

Probably J. Edgar Hoover. I understand his coffin is wired for sound and fed by spook agencies. He is known for being a kinky man. I am told Hoover is buried wearing a pair of women's spiked high heel shoes.

Thank you, Ron, for catching my error.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

As one of those folks that consider my politics to be "in the middle," I'd like to add my 2 cents to the posters who think it's smart for Barack to move to the center. Obviously he used his liberalness to win the primary and now he's using a more centered view to try and win the election. That hasn't made me view him more favorably. It just looks like he's pandering to get my vote. I would have much more respect for him if he stayed true to his beliefs. (I don't expect to agree with everything he does.) As it is, it's becoming obvious that he is just another politician. Yes, we all know that's what he is, but he won the primaries by convincing us that he wasn't just another politician. Also, don't accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being racist; for goodness sake, the man is as much white as he is black. Some of those that are so rabid over him remind me of the Claymates - admit no flaws and just worship! I'm not a hater. Just still undecided whether to vote for him or not at all.

If he is moving to the "right", then he sounds like a big time FLIP FLOPPER. And that will cost him votes. Just ask John Kerry.