Democrats On Left Take Obama Moves to Right in Stride

[John317]

LA Times

As Barack Obama moves to broaden his appeal beyond loyal Democrats, a chorus of anger and disappointment has arisen from the left. But those voices are a distinct minority because the party has a more pressing concern: winning in November.

On Wednesday, Obama again bucked his liberal allies, voting in the Senate to give legal immunity to phone companies that took part in warrantless wiretapping after the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics chided Obama for the vote -- which put him crossways with dozens of Democratic colleagues, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Reaction has been swift and -- aside from the blogosphere and some newspaper columnists -- notably mild.

"We're willing to work through this period," said Richard Parker, president of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, one of the party's most enduring advocacy groups. In the long run, he said, the organization's "serious concerns" about Obama are far outweighed by its disagreements with Republican John McCain.

Gerald Austin, a veteran Democratic strategist, put it more succinctly: "When I hear people complaining . . . I tell them I have one thing to say: 'President John McCain. Three Supreme Court appointments.' That's all I need to say."

Obama denies any sort of shape-shifting. Campaigning in Georgia on Tuesday, the Illinois senator said that those who see him as moving to the center "haven't been listening."

"Everybody has become so cynical about politics that the assumption is you must be doing everything for political reasons," Obama said. "And the message I want to send to everybody is: You're not going to agree with me on 100% of what I think. But don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something, that it must be because I'm doing that politically. I may just disagree with you."

At the very least, Obama has changed his tone and his emphasis after competing with Clinton for months to seem truest to the Democratic Party's traditional values.

Last week alone, Obama gave a speech on his support for public funding of social programs run by religious groups, and another on patriotism, wearing a flag pin on his lapel. The week before, he welcomed the Supreme Court's decision overturning a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and criticized its ruling against the death penalty for child rape.

On Wednesday, he voted for the wiretapping bill, which passed 69 to 28. Obama has called his support a "close call," saying the measure enabled authorities to investigate suspected terrorists but put limits on a president's power to approve wiretaps.

Few voters cast their ballots based on a single issue, making much of the discussion of Obama's evolution -- real or imagined -- just so much talk by political insiders. Significantly, though, many have accepted what they see as Obama's shift.

"At some point, it does cause a problem," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of the People for the American Way, another liberal advocacy group. "Is he there yet? Probably not."

It is hardly unusual for a candidate to move toward the middle in a general election; in fact, it is fairly standard operating procedure. That is part of what bothers some on the left.

Ben Austin, a former Clinton White House political deputy and early Obama supporter, called the senator's perceived drift "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive" for a candidate who aspires to be a transformational figure.

"To the extent progressives see him as the Reagan of the left, Reagan didn't tack toward the center," Austin said. "He moved the American electorate to the right."

The greater danger for Obama may come from outside the party. His recent statements have made it easier for McCain to undercut his image by portraying him as just another garden-variety politician "willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office," as Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the Arizona senator, put it.

But McCain is also vulnerable to charges of flip-flopping, above all for embracing the Bush tax cuts that he once dismissed as giveaways to the rich.

The last Democrat to occupy the White House, Bill Clinton, benefited from the same sort of shrugging acceptance from the left. A few years in the political wilderness can do a lot to promote party unity.

In 1992, Clinton ran on a platform that included deficit reduction and "ending welfare as we know it" -- hardly Democratic orthodoxy. Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, also left the campaign trail to preside over the execution of a mentally incapacitated inmate, Ricky Ray Rector, and famously went before Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to repudiate Sister Souljah, a hip-hop artist and political activist.

While there was some outcry from liberal activists, the overwhelming majority of Democrats -- and liberal voters -- stuck with Clinton in the fall. More significantly, the moves strengthened Clinton's reputation as "a different kind of Democrat," broadening his appeal and helping him win a three-way contest against President George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot.

No two elections are the same. Clinton no doubt gained mightily from the fact that there was no blogosphere back in 1992: The "net-roots" have been a source of much of the anxiety over Obama's moves.

But one similarity is a deep hunger among Democrats to take back the White House -- which has made many in the party willing to stomach views they might have once rejected.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, disagreed with Obama's support for the ruling on the right to bear arms. But from a pragmatic standpoint, Helmke said, "I think Obama probably played it the right way politically."

michael.finnegan@ latimes.com

[carolaa]

I pretty much agree with that writer. I've been disappointed that Obama has moved from his initial stances on a few things. However, I see McCain as more guilty in that area. He used to be more of a maverick, but now he does whatever it takes to win. He doesn't seem to have many ideas of his own any more.

[John317]

McCain chose Palin so that he can have more freedom to go after the Independent and Democratic vote. He knew that Palin would galvanize the conservatives, who weren't all that happy with McCain. McCain had no real chance to exciting the conservatives by himself because his views are essentially left of the Republican right. He is more like the old Rockefeller Republican.

But compared to Obama McCain looks conservative to most Republicans. He needed Palin, and I think it was a good choice from the political viewpoint.

Today of course he is ahead of Obama in the polls but I expect it will change again several times between now and November. Anyone could win at this time point.

I'm getting to the point where I am seriously thinking of not writing any more on the Forum regarding the election or politics. Nothing comes before the gospel for me, and I am finding that political discussions tend to be too emotional and "hot" here. For me it is interesting and fun and I have close friends on either side, but too many people get personally angry over it. I'd rather concentrate on the Bible and on Christ anyway.

[carolaa]

That's what I mean. He chose Palin, not because that's who he wanted, but because it was the expedient thing to do politically. I don't disagree with what he did. I just prefer when candidates do things because they're right in their eyes, not because it's politically expedient. Both sides do it, and it's always disappointing to me. Do what it takes to win.

By all means, you should take a break from politics if you need to. Goodness, after the DNC, I bet you could use a break.

[John317]

I don't know of a single choice of vice-presidential running mate that was not due in large part to politics.

Look at FDR and Truman-- FDR got rid of Wallace because of political concerns.

Kennedy chose LBJ even though the two did not even like each other. Kennedy needed the South, so he choose LBJ.

I'm sure McCain feels comfortable with Palin and thinks they can work together personally. Also, he can't be too far from most of Palin's positions on most important things, and he knows that Palin will support his administration's positions.

His main consideration was that Palin was acceptable and even would be popular with the conservatives in the party, and that is what he needed. I think that both candidates were out to pick someone who they believed would help win the election. That really has to be the first consideration because it wouldn't help to pick someone you totally agree with and enjoy being with but who can't help you win the office.

Frankly, speaking of which, I can't understand why Obama chose Biden. Can you? Biden never got more than about 8% of the votes anywhere, and so he won't be able to deliver his native state for Obama, and only a small percentage of the delegates favored Obama's choice. Biden was forced out of the campaign by allegations of plagiarism.

Here is what was on Wikipedia about Biden. I am sure it will be brought up again. I don't see it as a big deal myself.

Quote:

Controversy emerged during Biden's candidacy; he ended his presidential campaign on September 23, 1987 after being accused of plagiarism. Though he had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock with only minor modifications: “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.” After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. But in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee, he failed to do so. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover.

As a part of this controversy, it was revealed that Biden had been involved in a similar incident during his first year at Syracuse University Law School in 1965. Biden initially received an “F” in an introductory class on legal methodology for writing a paper relying almost exclusively on a single Fordham Law Review article, which he had cited. Biden was allowed to repeat the course and passed with high marks. After ending his Presidential campaign, Biden requested the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Delaware Supreme Court review the issue. The Board concluded on December 21, 1987, after Biden had withdrawn, that the senator had not violated any rules, although Biden did not release this result until May 1989.

Because of his early withdrawal, Biden did not participate in the 1988 caucuses and primaries, in which Governor Michael Dukakis defeated Jesse Jackson, Senators Al Gore, Paul Martin Simon and other longer-standing contenders.

I voted for McGovern, Carter, Dukakis and Mondale. Only Carter won, and I was later sorry he did. Oh, as a kid-- I know it doesn't count!-- I voted for John Kennedy. I liked him and his brother Robert a lot.

[Woody]

That's what I mean. He chose Palin, not because that's who he wanted, but because it was the expedient thing to do politically. I don't disagree with what he did. I just prefer when candidates do things because they're right in their eyes, not because it's politically expedient. Both sides do it, and it's always disappointing to me. Do what it takes to win.

By all means, you should take a break from politics if you need to. Goodness, after the DNC, I bet you could use a break.

Ever heard of power sharing?