<p>Just because Obama doesn’t have a “proven” record of crossing the aisle (though he does have some bi-partisan legislation under his belt), doesn’t mean that he won’t be that guy, FF. Obama is very much respected by many on the right in both the House and Senate. McCain’s rep is more of a maverick and he voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007. If people think (wrongly, in your opinion) that Bush is too far right, then their opinions would be the same for McCain.</p>
<p>Can you name any major topic where Obama has indicated a willingness to break from a far-left position? Any? McCain on the other hand has broken ranks with the far right numerous times - why do you think there was so much antipathy toward him by the Limbaughs, Hannitys and others?</p>
<p>Why did he vote with Bush 100% in 2008 and 95% in 2007 if he’s so willing to break ranks?</p>
<p>Don’t forget that Bush also broke ranks with the far right on things such as immigration reform. Obama has never broken ranks with the left. So, who’s the the more ideological? A President Obama will be more ideological than Bush or McCain.</p>
<p>^^I find that laughable after what Bush allowed Cheney and the neocons to do. (Or, I should say, I would laugh if it weren’t so sad.)</p>
<p>Laugh all you want, but your viewpoint is too narrow - focused on Iraq. When taking a broader perspective, Bush and for sure McCain are far more centrist than Obama. I’m still waiting for any evidence that you have that Obama has broken ranks with the left?</p>
<p>Okay, FF, leaving out international policy (cough)…I willing to concede that McCain is more centrist in domestic policy than Obama, and I’m not going to spend time digging up some of the less important bipartisan work he accomplished in Illinois or in DC over the years, though it exists, as does work that he accomplished before going into politics that would suggest a willingness to see both sides of issues and find compromises. However, I believe the guy when he says he wants less divisiveness in politics. He’s run a brilliant, classy, groundbreaking, surprising campaign that has attracted independents and some conservatives already, with more to come in the GE. Since I started following him over the past four years, he has yet to disappoint in that regard. And it should not come as a surprise that after the Bush era, America might want to veer strongly in a different direction, even if that means away from the center at warp speed. I just don’t see the irony. Cause and effect, more like.</p>
<p>Yes, he talks a good game, but as Hilary would say, talk is cheap. When it comes down to votes/action he clings to the left like he claims poor whites cling to guns and religion.</p>
<p>Your metaphor is not apt. He doesn’t cling to the left; he represents the left. And having grown up in relative poverty* (compared to any other viable candidate) though not with guns or much religion, and having earned what money he has since graduating from college in the mid 80s, he probably understands the poor better than anyone running for President in the last couple generations, except perhaps Edwards.</p>
<p>*Edit: Not to mention having relatives in real poverty across the globe.</p>
<p>“he represents the left”</p>
<p>So, where is all this “centrism” and representing “not just blue states nor the red states, but the United States” of which he speaks?</p>
<p>
The silent conservative majority won’t vote for Obama. The majority of Repubilcans that voted Obama in the primary were voting against the Clinton political machine and for a split Democratic party. Most will be back home for the general election.</p>
<p>He represents the left while reaching out to the right to find compromises rather than creating Rovian demons out of conservatives. You know, compromises. Those agreements where neither side gets everything they want but both sides get some of what they want?</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for any evidence of compromise. When the Senate was hopelessly mired in partisanship over judicial nominations a group of Republicans and Democrats got together and decided that compromise was needed. McCain was one of them (and took a LOT of heat from the right); Obama stayed with the partisans. So, I repeat, beyond his rhetoric, where’s the evidence of a willingness to compromise?</p>
<p>Obama has done nothing that represents compromise. He’s as far left as you can get. McCain has crossed the aisle several times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This to me shows how skewed our definitions of left/right are in mainstream usage in this country. Obama isn’t anywhere near the actual left side of the pole; he’s left-moderate at best. I just read over a summary of Obama’s positions, and believe me, lots of them are not as far left as lots of people I know. National single payer health insurance, gay marriage, death penalty, for a start.</p>
<p>I think he’s a smart, informed, and thinking candidate, and closer to my viewpoint than anyone else left (though not really any liberal-er than Clinton.) Of the major Dem candidates, Edwards was much more classic left, and of all of them, definitely Kucinich was the farthest. Obama’s just partway down the axis.</p>
<p>Lockstep left wing? No way.</p>
<p>National single payer health insurance - it would be hard to put a hair between Obama’s proposal and Hillary’s; his position is hardly a break from the left.</p>
<p>gay marriage - he has called for the repeal of DOMA; the only thing that keeps him from calling for legalized gay marriage is his fear to take such a political risk. Again, not a break from the far left.</p>
<p>death penalty - he essentially wants to limit it out of existence. Hardly could be construed as a pro-death penalty position.</p>
<p>But, where has he taken a position where dailkos, or move-on, democrat underground or huffington say enough is enough, this guy is too right-wing or centrist for us? All you have listed are minor perturbations from the far-left agenda.</p>
<p>yellwdog,</p>
<p>If you want to divert a thread away from your candidate’s weaknesses, you should at least get your facts straight rather than cut and paste them from some liberal blog.</p>
<p>Neither Obama nor Clinton are talking in any form about national single-payer health insurance. Universal insurance is a different entity entirely.</p>
<p>I am not “listening to” anyone–I am looking at my own long-held positions. Besides, your point was that he is far left,and then you say I only think he isn’t cuz the far-left “agenda” says he’s not. Which kinda proves my point.</p>
<p>“I am not “listening to” anyone–I am looking at my own long-held positions. Besides, your point was that he is far left,and then you say I only think he isn’t cuz the far-left “agenda” says he’s not. Which kinda proves my point.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure I follow what I highlighted. However, I will concede that the term “far left” is a bit ambiguous, since it extends into the mini range of politics as well. My point is that Obama is consistently left of center and at times very left of center. At no time has he indicated a willingness to cross the aisle and compromise on any serious position. Yet, he is the one who talks the talk of a “new kind of politics”. It’s a pity that he has nothing in his rather short stint as a senator to back up that claim and instead passed up opportunities to be exactly that type of politician. So, is he who he says he is, or is he what he actually does?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since he has no record to speak of, it’s hard to characterize him as anything. All we can really do is judge him on his associates: Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.</p>