Increasingly I've become concerned regarding the "centrist" position that Barack Obama has taken BEFORE even getting the actual nomination. It seems that an Obama presidency will run more on symbols than actually instituting real programmatic changes.

Like a HRC presidency, an Obama White House may well be long on him being the first black president, as in the case of Clinton being the first female president, but short on real reform.

People attentive to politics ought to be concerned about the drift to the so-called center. That he eschewed public finanancing and has backed this bad FISA bill may truly underscore that he really doesn't believe in half of his own rhetoric.

I was listening to NPR's "On Point" radio show and Matthew Dowd, who ran Bush's 2004 campaign, said that Obama did damage to his own "brand" by reneging on his public financing pledge.

He said that Obama had nothing to lose by taking the pledge; the DNC could have run the ads for him, via the money it could get from his 1.5 million donor list, and that would have left him with $84 million to run ads between Labor Day and Election Day. What's important is getting out the vote and connecting with people.

Dowd himself argued that TV ads only work so well with the electorate. Instead, people make a judgment about a candidate's stance and forthrighness, which Obama seeming to be undermining.

In short, can he be trusted? Is he a man of his word. Will he fight for the things he believe in?

I have doubts about that.

here is the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1/1001/76618/776/544346

Here is the quote she uses:

If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means 'to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal' would bring terrible retribution.

[From dissenting opinion in Olmstead vs. United States, in which the court upheld the use of wiretaps in a case involving an investigation of bootlegging. Brandeis strongly defended the individual right to privacy from government intrusion.]

-Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

An Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional Law scholar? He's a pretty poor one if he supports the FISA law.

In what way is it "vitally important" to have Obama as president over McCain?

In the same way that the outcome of the Bush-Gore 2000 race was vital even though Gore would have been a manager of many of the status quo's standard policies. Before the Iraq war, Gore vehemently opposed the attack on that country. Is that a meaningful difference to you?

Do you want Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol running foreign policy? Do you want more Alitos and Scalias on the Supreme Court endorsing the abolition of habeas corpus and the erosion of other key rights, including privacy? Do you want the same ideologues running the country over the last eight years to continue to do so?

Yes, the differences between Obama and McCain are smaller than I wish they were. But as no less an establishment critic than Noam Chomsky frequently points out, even minute differences at the top of powerful political structures can translate into significant differences in people's lives.

having the courage to speak the truth.

I'd be really worried if Obama started saying health care should be left up to the market, that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent or that the Iraq war was a great idea. He's still the most liberal presidential nominee we've had in a long, long time. We make a mistake when we assume that if a candidate doesn't agree with us all the time, he's lost to us. Or that by moving to the center in the general election on a handful of issues, his governing philosophy as a whole would be the same. In 2000, Bush talked a lot about compassionate conservatism, but governed as just a conservative. This was obvious to anyone who took the time to look at the totality of his proposals. The same is for Obama. He is campaigning as a moderate (and rightly so), but his major proposals are quite liberal. Yes, I am troubled by some of the things Obama has done in recent weeks. But this period doesn't exist in a vacuum. The totality of Obama is something I'm still very excited to see in office.

You're pleading with Obama to return to the principals he espoused at the start of his campaign. What if he doesn't? A vote for him would effectively be an endorsement of his new stance on these issues, no?

Glenn,

I don't often comment here, but I read your column all the time, and I can't thank you enough for your consistent, well-informed and well-documented critiques.

I expect to be voting for Obama come November, but I have no stars in my eyes as to the kind of politician I think he is. I can only hope (I actually just sneered when I typed the word "hope") that he acquires or rediscovers some strong progressive principles before then; I strongly believe that the voters would respond enthusiastically if he stood firmly for actual democratic ideals.

P.S. Publican, I read that Sy Hersh piece over the weekend, and it scares the crap out of me. I wish like hell that Congress would actually step up and try to stop this Administration before it compounds the disastrous situation in which it has already embroiled us. What the hell good is it to have checks and balances or an opposition party if they can't be relied upon to stand up to the excesses of this corrupt Executive?

there has been no shake up at the top of Obama's campaign .. I heard one good point yesterday ... Obama has never had to face serious Republican opposition before(since Ryan bagged out early because of his public divorce) .. I mean .. do you consider Alan Keyes a serious candidate? .. as the guys over at Sadly, No! pointed out yesterday .. elections are all about drawing contrasts ... not Democrats trying to act like Republicans