I see your point, Unpronounceable, but I think it's a false distinction. So is any distinction between "ad hominem" and "personal."

Security IS an issue. McCain DOES claim superiority. His claims ARE overblown. Clark IS correct.

This IS mere sophistry.

So, we pardon Nixon, (LOATHE Clinton--I disagree with him, but I dont understand the HATRED), allow Bush Sr.'s war crimes, let Reagan off scott-free (And North , who works for FOX News)for Iran-Contra ("Where'd Iran get all those bombs with US writing om them??"--check them out! The dates are , like, month/day/year--no one else does it that way))and, they are supposed to learn a lesson--HOW?

I didn't know Obama said this, but if he believes it he is ignorant, and if he doesn't he is repulsive. Read the book "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" for a complete demolition and repudiation of this big lie:

http://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Image-Memory-Legacy-Vietnam/dp/0814751474

"Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day."

I disagree that Obama's statements about the court's ruling have anything to do with his move to the center, or that progressives have any reason to despair over them. We should put the kibosh on that meme now. All that he has said, he has also said in the past and has always posed the 'pragmatic centrist' on the 2nd amendment- which though activist was not a terrible decision all things considered- and for capital punishment in the case of child rape. In any case, progressives really shouldn't be in the position of caring about this- Obama is committed to naming justices in the mold of Breyer and Ginsberg, so his opinions on court decisions are not relevant (and btw, he did welcome the habeas decision).

Other than that though, I agree with your utterly dispiriting list except in that you forgot his reversing himself on Iran (perhaps that was more than two weeks ago, but it bears pointing out). He attacked Hillary for a position he now embraces- labeling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. You also didn't mention the procedural stuff which I found distasteful and strategically stupid- disavowing public financing and town hall debates.

Basically, his New Republican handlers have gotten hold of him, (and you'll notice, they've cheered each of these moves), and he has let them rip the philosophical core from his candidacy. It's a cold calculation and I have no illusions about politicians, nor desires to banish such things. My problem is how poor a calculation has been made. Because even if he's correct politically- debatable, but I think less persuasively so than the left would have it, and certainly for a candidate that's so maligned by suspicions of being foreign/unAmerican from the get go- all he's doing is increasing his chances to become the President (probably marginally) at a significant cost of what he will be able to accomplish once he gets there. The whole power of the Presidency is the bully pulpit- if he's going to use it to flatter our collective prejudices, instead of to lead as he has been doing since wrapping up the nomination, then his Presidency will be an abject failure at a time that cries out desperately for leadership.

Say what you will about the reasons for the decline of our civilization, chief amongst them certainly has to be a genuine lack of ambition- a satisfaction with the scraps from Longshanks' table. It's not that we are not as gratified by great achievement as we ever were, it's that we are increasingly unwilling to risk the shiny objects safely within our grasp to reach for it.

PS I like that this post was cathartic, as opposed to caustic which better characterized some of the earlier versions (and at some point, we will have to accept and move on). In any case, the change in tone is most welcome.

Obama abandoned his long-time preacher and friend like a hot potato when it became politically expeditious to do so. I don't believe Wrights comments to be heinous in any way, though they were universally (and falsely) characterized this way in the media. They were extremely critical, and as such their substance deserved serious discussion. But rather than lead us in this discussion Obama turned away from his pastor and friend, just as he is now doing with Clark (who is hardly a liberal and who made a very good point).

What I want to see in a politician is courage. Courage to tell us the truth and to challenge the deliberate misrepresentations by the media and by political opponents, rather than this win-at-all-costs political calculus that is devoid of principle and character. Courage like that displayed by Russ Feingold in opposing this vile FISA bill, or when he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. But Obama has been as changeable as a weather vane lately. As Glenn has pointed out, this is making him look weak and craven. He is falling right into the Right's stereotype of Democratic candidates.

His positions on various specific issues are important in a "grown-up" way ...

As for "running to the center" ... it seems a vain attempt to prove an "I am not now nor have I ever been a _____" null hypothesis.... the other side has suitcases full of "well, what about this or that" ways to further this particular to prove idiological purity ....

Like the folks in Guantanamo, proving you're innocent is a bitch... even when the other side can't prove you're guilty (or even bring charges) ... the door stays locked, the game continues, you're still the goat.

I think a lot of what's currently happening is Obama is making clearer positions he's held all along. His position on Capital punishment and his hedging on guns predates anything that happened this week, he's always expressed impatience with vocal athiests and he's managed to get where he is by dealing with Chicago machine politics.

I think a lot of mythmaking, supported by the media and not discouraged by the campaign has altered expectaions to the point where people are suddenly surprised by things that have been true all along.

Even his January FISA letter was sufficiently mealy-mouthed that his new position is defensible as a continuation of his old one.