Liberals make themselves look weak when they appear to want avoid being called liberal. Conservatives seem more comfortable with themselves and that is seen as strength and confidence. If Bush can campaign as a "compassionate conservative" why can't Obama turn that on his head and be a "(something) liberal"? When half the country votes for an Al Gore or a John Kerry, why can't that half have a name they're just as proud to wear as the other half?

This really is not a move anywhere for Senator O. What we've known here in Chicago all this is that he is a moderate and at times that is frustrating. We'd like him to take stronger stances on liberal issues.

It's his "dread liberal" policies that have inspired scores of young people to vote for him and donate money.

After his FISA capitultation, I worte his campaign and told them I will not be donating to them again. Granted, my donation was relatively paltry (not by my standards though), but it was the first and only time I've donated to a candidate.

Try to get this through: Obama can win on his liberal credentials. They are what inspire us cynics who gave up on the system long ago to actuall get out and vote, and there are enough of us to win the right candidate the White House.

Obama's move to the center is very disappointing, and is nothing short of a betrayal to the millions who were inspired by him earlier.

I don't think that is the question.

Why is Obama moving to the center?

Is the question.

But maybe that's just me.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal again?

Of course he is moving to the center. And so is McCain because they both realize that the election is going to be decided by about five percent of the electorate. They are no longer speaking to conservatives or liberals, but the middle of the country that can easily sway in a strong breeze (ergo two Bush terms).

I can't understand the point of this article. Obama has always been centrist. Reaching across the aisle for agreement is one of the cornerstones of his campaign. He and Hilary may have described their positions with a different narrative, but the substance is nearly identical. If we think of Obama as a liberal godsend, we will be sorely disappointed. Just look at his dossier of advisors - loaded with centrists, (and fairly hawkish centrists) from the Clinton years.

Yeah , that pretty much fizzles out the ol' "Professor of Constitutional Law" title too for Mr. Obama. I'm not giving his campaign another dime either; until I hear an awfully good answer for abandoning the Constitution and abandoning, well, principles. I'm saving my money instead so I can move to Canada when McCain gets in office..

I love the term "Moving to the Center." Translation: Everything he said during the primary was a lie to get you to vote for him. Now that he has your votes--and your money--he is free to espouse a corporate agenda, beginning this week with the FISA vote. Furthermore, he knows you can't really do anything about it because McSame is so much worse.

Thanks latte liberals! Our nominee is a corporate tool whose only experience is giving speeches and voting "Present."

He always was a centrist. Because he's a Black Democrat, and because the usually reliable National Journal gave him a "most liberal Senator" rating that seems to be based on thin air, he's assumed to be a softspoken Ron Dellums or Kweise Mfume. Except for Clinton, who was to his, and everybody's, left on women's issues, he was the least liberal candidate in the primaries.

Frustrating? You bet. But at least he's been friendlier with Howard Dean than the DLC. That leaves reason to hope. And watch.

I give him a pass on the FISA bill though, bitter disappointment though it was. That battle was lost in the House, not the Senate. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by opposing it.

This is the age of the Internet people. Get past the glossy marketing campaigns and do your research.

On Iraq, do not "moderate," please. Repeat your vow to take us out soon. Keep that issue in front. Your economics are fuzzy, wisdom-lite, about as bad as McCain's. Do not let McCain make such things into the main issues.

Keep Iraq in front. And find other real contrasts. Trumpet them.

Karen22 wrote: "Thanks latte liberals! Our nominee is a corporate tool whose only experience is giving speeches and voting "Present.""

Move On.

And no "dot org." Just move on. Are Lakers fans still complaining about their loss? Are Patriots fans still riled up over the super bowl? Maybe you should either come on board or drown your sorrows quietly.

Politicians are politicians. They need votes to be elected. That's why Hillary talked up guns and did shots and that's why Obama is trying to move toward the center. The x% of us who are very liberal aren't enough to carry him into the White House. They need those who are fencesitters.

If you don't think HRC would be trying to get centrist voters you are nuts.

Move on.

One of the reasons I supported Obama over Clinton was her failure to show up for the Senate vote to strip immunity from telecom companies that cooperated with the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program. Obama voted against immunity and I voted for him.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. It's a Constitutional issue and my sincerest hope is that Obama won't vote for the House bill "compromise", either.

I'm not sure but could it be that

1) most of the country is neither far left or far right? This is my opinion. I've lived in big cites that were far left and I've lived in places where people are more centrist. I also used live in a suburban are that was VERY upscale and VERY republican. VERY rich. My observation is that most people are not quite far left or far right. Some of the middle folks declare as independents (like me) but there are huge numbers of moderate (but declared) democrats and moderate (but declared) republicans.

And example would be not all republicans are *pro-life*. Most aren't actually. Only the Christian right. Not all democrats are *gun control* advocates or against the death penalty. MANY MANY (if not most) want the right to own guns and execute murderers and rapists.

So I think the issue is this: the *middle* is hard to define specifically because one person who calls herself a moderate can have opposite views from another person calling herself a moderate. With the far left and far right, its neat and clean and easy. Everyone KNOWS where you stand on any given issue.

I don't think any purely left wing candidate can win with white house any more than any pure right wing candidate could.

If you think that's possible you should have voted for Kucinich who is purely left wing and the republicans should have nominated Pat Buchanan or someone like him. Those people never woudl appeal to the MAJORITY of Americans. I like Kucinich. Heck I like Ron Paul even better. But where are they right now? At home. Because they do not have appeal to a large majority of Americans.

On the other hand, for you liberals who decry Obama's moderate stances on issues: I am a true moderate and no, he is NOT a moderate. His voting record is clear. He is a LIBERAL. If he was a moderate he wouldn't be afraid to talk about nuclear energy (something I would like to see more of). If he was a true moderate, he wouldn't be talking about nationalized THIS and nationalized THAT. I support him despite his left-ier position than the one I personally espouse. WHY? Because not every decision he makes I will agree with.

I don't like the FISA capitulation either but seriously, I'd rather take him at his word that he'll work on it (and hold him to it) than choose my apparent other option who will be neither inclined to care nor do anything about it.

For goodness sake, liberals, stop eating your young. And look at Obama's voting record in Illinois and the Senate. You think he's not liberal? Maybe not to YOU but to a lot of others, he really is.