Click on my name for a review of the Rethuglicans' self-appraisal of their chances of winning anything in November.

Despite his sub-30% approval rating, our President is still politically effective, (click on sig for great cartoon illustrating this), because no matter how much he flies against reality, and is stupidly obstinate, and never finds a mistake in what he does, he still appears to stand firm for something.

--> Jebbie

To be accurate, Obama said he would support a fillibuster of any bill which included immunity. He has not yet broken that promise.

Well I did say it appears he will be breaking his promise, and I base that on his own statements.

But on filibuster v support filibuster you are correct:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

(TPM via GGreenwald, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html)

But is there really that big a difference between filibuster and support a filibuster?

And why isn't the Obama camp pushing this characterization of McCain more?

McCain is fortunate to already be labeled the "maverick". Now if he changes his mind, he's seen as having a legit reason. It's not fair, but it must be dealt with.

An advantage that Obama has is any of the over the top criticisms of Obama by McCain surrogates look bad, mean sprited because Obama comes off as a genuinely "nice" guy.

***

BTW, CNN just played McCain's quote of "Obama's not to be trusted".

Whoever the hell is advising Obama needs to get a freaking clue and wake the hell up!

who theoretically could be harnessed -- via the internet -- to make "the good case" (whatever that might be) in support of Obama's stance. They obviously have not been contacted by the mothership.

We hear that TeamObama has unbelievably wonderful use of internet ... but I'm not hearing any cohesive (or particularly credible, nuanced or reasoned) arguement for his stance, much less his proposed, intended, apparent flip-flop (apparent intent to NOT support the proposed filibuster; stated intent to vote to pass this bill) ...

I don't get it. TeamObama has an army of millions... and they seem to leaving them to come-up with their own explanation or borrow one from some other poster.

"He has to do this to get elected" is a wimpy whiny excuse ... god only knows what he'll "have to do" next ...

Surely they can do better than that (oh, I've heard some pulled-out-of-my explanations of why FISA's not so bad that simply boggle.)

"....in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular."

THAT is the key statement. The "center" is obviously in the "8 out of 10". The reality is that the "center" has moved.

I have to disagree with your statement, Glenn, that the basis for the "move to center" view is an unexamined relic from the past. From a social psychology view, it's a necessity of persuasion within groups to achieve coalescence AND for a leader to emerge (or movement within the group towards a goal or to get movement at all) that one side or the other must come closer to a shared spot in the middle or the group as a whole becomes polarized.

AND there must be strong "coalescence" of opinion on one side of center to put pressure on the whole of the group to move. AND there is a "center" to that "coalescence" on that one side...or there is no pressure. AND/OR there must be a "loosening" of the center which is indicated by shifting polls or expression of opinion that was not evident before.

I do agree with you that a leaders with a strong voice that hold to their values, even if those values are not "center" move the group as a whole (get elected). BUT there must be precedence or a loosening in the center to their side for it to move when pressure is applied.

For example: MLK was a strong leader with a strong voice that shifted the whole center of the nation towards civil rights and opened people's eyes to the reality of racism in their own back yards. But the bedrock of the "center" was primed for that shifting and was already loosened by the school integration fights of the 50's and progressive movements that started in the late 30's. "Racism" was deeply shaken by WWII and the horrendous result of prejudice against the Jews, which shook the cemented basis of prejudice that was fairly well ensconced in our society and had been so for thousands of years. So the "center" had really already moved when MLK came along. When he pushed, it shifted.

If he had shown up in the early 20's or 30s, and did what he did, it wouldn't have had the same impact at all. Because the "center" was solidified at that point and there was no precedence of loosening the opinions of the group. I could go on, but I think the point is obvious.

So, bottomline, the "center", while it was not perceptible, had in actuality moved. And it's moved now. If that statistic had been instead "5 out of 6", the Democrats would not have won in 2006. On all of the "liberal" or progressive issues, there is a loosening of opinion within the "center" that has already been there for a while or there wouldn't be progress in a liberal direction.

So, sorry, the "move to center" cliche is still quite relevant. The center exists and it's necessary to come to terms with it. More importantly, it's important to see exactly where center is.

As far as Obama is concerned, I think he is a politician first he follows the pulse of the nation. Quite honestly, I think he used the momentum of the progressive movement to get where he is but he's not loyal to it. And, BTW, going back to social psychology, it is no coincidence that he sounds a lot like MLK (speaking of) in his speeches. He KNEW that would grab at the longings and dashed dreams of both liberal white folks and black folks a like and he went with it. I think he's gambling on what will get him into the white house and throwing the dice at the largest spread. AND I think this has been evident for quite a long time to those who would have looked beyond the kumbyah koolaide. He's played the game quite well and you all have sung along. In essence, he used the "coalescence" of the center within the left to ride to the nomination and now he will ride the "coalescence" of the main center to the presidency. Could he get there without that main center? Possibly, since it's moved left and is loose, but I think he's throwing the dice again at the largest spread to be sure.