You give us two examples of Democrats who apparently got into office by embracing your ideals, and then you mention that the Blue Dogs are also unassailable - despite rejecting your ideals.

No. Blue Dogs don't have the "where-do-they-stand?" problem because they are consistent -- they got into office on the basis of the same beliefs that they espouse once in office.

I'm not arguing that Democrats can only win if they espouse positions on the Left. The point is that Democrats are very politically secure and don't need to shed their core positions in order to win elections.

Could it be an anti-Republican backlash after all, and not an anti-war, anti-evesdropping movement?

I'm not arguing that there's some "anti-eavesdropping" movement in the country. I'm arguing that there's no "pro-eavesdropping" movement that will boot Democrats out of power if -- as pundits and consultants claim -- they don't support the Bush/Cheney agenda.

As for the "move to the center", there are at least 20 Blue Dogs embracing that philosophy, compared to the two "non-centrist" examples you presented, and you just stated that it has proven very difficult to unseat them, even with your evidence.

Blue Dogs haven't "moved to the center." That's where they began (depending, that is, on how you define "center"). Thus, they don't run the risk that Obama runs by reversing himself on key issues as pundits and consultants are urging him to do.

Now that Hillary Clinton is supporting Obama I guess that means the support staff cesspool of DLCers is in the mix also. If Obama starts looking like he’s pulling a John Kerry it’s because he’s listening to Mcauliffe, Davis, Carville and the rest of the Village idiots that worked on the Clinton campaign.

Obama *must* remain a left-leaning progressive if we are to have any hope of an existing "left."

And so, we have the superdelegates. They are a check against Obama's drift: they can withdraw their support if he abandons his progressive positions. And we can ask them to do so.

-- Juliebird

Unfortunately, Obama is not now nor has he ever been a "left-leaning progressive". Read that Nation article by Sirota GG references in his article. Face it, Obama pulled a masterful bait and switch in the primaries and he doesn't care now if you know it.

As to the superdelegates, just how many of them do you think are progressive/radical enough to pull such a coup against the nominee? There is not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, no matter how nicely you ask them.

Maybe there's more to their victory than embracing/rejecting neo-con ideals.

Maybe there is. But incumbent Republicans are all shown to be the ones in a position of weakness right now. Incumbent Democrats, not so much.

I think Glenn's point is valid.

If a Democrat comes out and actually stands for something, they weather the attacks quite well. Hence why traditional Repub districts will go for a strong Democrat, not just the "centrist" one.

Rationalization, of course

-->Erline

And while I think he can be accused of hypocrisy on the following two issues, he hasn't changed his position on telecom immunity or public financing.

Technically I guess you are correct about Obama not changing his position on immunity, but what has changed of course is that it appears he will be breaking his promise to filibuster any bill that includes immunity.

This is Arlen Spector's favorite rational for voting for the most heinous legislation.

I am vehemently against X, but will vote for X anyway because...

Rationalization, plain and simple.

I could declare till I was blue in the face that I was against suffocating kittens and puppies, but if I then vote FOR a bill that allows the suffocating of kittens and puppies, well then my statement against the practice becomes, shall we say, inoperative...

if obama wants to lead, then he should show us how he would lead.

Seems to me that's exactly what he'd doing.

As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain.

Glenn highlights something that is really, very truly frightening: Obama seems to support Scalia's insanity. This is what troubles me the most because so does McCain. We have two candidates who apparently want to continue the conservative shift of the court--the high court, the final say--to the right. McCain has said as much, noting that he would appoint justices like Scalia and Alito (AKA "Scalito"). Obama has not said this, but his comments regarding recent rulings suggest it. Obama's reversal on FISA also suggests this. The next president could have two appointments to the Supreme Court--right now, those appointments look way too Scalito for me.

Thank you, Glenn, for highlighting this very critical point. And of course, it goes without saying that you are my hero.

The noise from the woods made the cat's and sheep's wool stand on end. Hair popped up. It seemed to resemble a hog's bristle.

Next the overused cliche will be that the puppy collie dogs in America are so phobic. In America the asparagus patch will not grow next year unless we bomb more humans who eat cauliflower, broccoli, and germinating acorn nuts dropped from oak trees.

I would suggest to these pro-kill maniacs GOPS: To Use a S.A.S.E. and arrange for someone to mail post-death, a goodbye card. None with an iota of decency, or common sense, should waste the postage stamp required to send a bereavement hallmark card to the fake killers.

Lies. A forked tongue, fraudulent, worn-cliche, and dead-pea-brains.

Why next? The GOP oriented delusional may begin to carry a hacksaw?

There ain't a hacksaw with sharp teeth made to saw through hard steel.

Why is there any debate about this? Read Michael Tomasky's column in the Guardian on why Obama is doing the right thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/26/barackobama.uselections2008

Makes me wretch.

I am so thankful that I live in a true blue state. I actually have a choice this year.

Unlike in 2004, I don't think Edwards would run to the middle. The wrong candidate got the nomination.