[UPDATED ]Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center( ADDED the cutest video of obama's oldest daughter)

I would say he has moved to the center on FISA and DC gun ban issue from his initial position. But he is right on Abortion and IRAQ so far. Right in that he has not shifted his long standing views on both those issues. We may disagree on abortion but he has held those long standing views on abortion. Yes even on Iraq I think he is going to stick to his guns on withdrawing and not staying the course.

His statement below:

POWDER SPRINGS, Ga. -- Asked by a voter about accusations of flip-flopping, Democrat Barack Obama dismissed the notion Tuesday that he has been shifting stances on Iraq, guns and the death penalty to break with his party's liberal wing and court a wider swath of voters.

"The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event.

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."



Display:


I think (2.00 / 3)

Other than the FISA issue people need to take a deep breath and not accuse him of flip flopping on the others.  I think researching his past positions would help oneself to not jump to conclusions.  


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST

Re: I think (2.00 / 2)

Agreed, 100%.  FISA is the only one, and I think, really, that without the backing of most/all Congressional Democrats, it was a political necessity, lest he fall into that "See, I told you!  Dems are weak on national  security!" trap.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (2.00 / 1)

That, and to be honest, I don't think that he could have killed it if he'd have stood opposed to it.  Pelosi and especially Hoyer are completely behind this bill, for whatever reason, and I think they'd have stood firm against Obama - and then it would have become a Battle Royal within the Democratic caucus, and an entirely new can of worms.  If you think this press narrative is bad, just think of what it would have been like if Obama was painted as being left of Pelosi in a major internal legislative battle.

With Pelosi and Hoyer on the side of the devil on this one, and our Senate "majority" as weak as it's ever been, I don't think this is a battle Obama could have won - and he made the smart choice, I think, in choosing to piss off the Netroots (who are still going to be with him regardless) rather than setting off a massive and ugly narrative in the press that could potentially doom not only his campaign but also go downticket.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But (none / 0)

It's not possible for anyone with a D after their name to avoid that smear.  It's not based on any recent reality, it's based on references to the end of the Vietnam war and warping whatever legislative/policy issue, no matter how unrelated, to fit that existing paradigm.  E.g.: opposition to Star Wars boondoggle=weak, invading Bosnia=weak, not attacking Iraq=weak, not allowing drilling in ANWR=weak, and so on.  
In Obama's case, this is an even more specious defense, as he has already voted against a version of this bill, so if voting against it is going to be spun as weak, he's going to have to take that hit no matter what.  
I can't explain why Obama would do this.  There is no pro-Telecomm Immunity constituency, even in his donor base the Telecomms are a drop in the bucket.I sincerely hope he's just been bamboozled.    
Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (2.00 / 2)

The problem is, there's not really any position to have on the gun ban. What are you going to do about a Supreme Court decision? Rail against activist judges? You have to basically take your medicine on that one.

Nonetheless, I still see little problem with the Heller decision. It's probably a big surprise to most people that there previously wasn't a specific individual right to carry a gun, seeing as how it's been taken as an article of faith for so long. Yet Heller also said governments CAN regulate that right; it's just a matter of how they do it.

So as a con law professor, I'm sure Obama can appreciate this.

Also, let's not pretend that we know what Clinton would've said about had she been the nominee. She wasn't exactly sounding anti-gun in Pennsylvania. It's pretty much accepted that it's political suicide these days to criticize gun rights while running for high office, except at the margins (i.e., the gun-show loophole).


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (2.00 / 2)

The DC gun ban was not so much of an issue of what is right or wrong now that the Supreme Court gave its ruling.

We have to understand on our side about the ones who bring this issue up as him flip flopping. He did say in clear language in the past that he was for the DC gun ban. Now he supports the Supreme Court ruling which contradicts his initial support.

I must confess it's no earth shattering moment of gotcha politics.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He does not (none / 0)

I've explained your error on this when you were posting as aliveandkickin, and here you are repeating it, so I'm not optimistic this will do any good, but here it is anyway.

Obama agrees with the Supreme Court's position that gun ownership is an individual right subject to reasonable regulation.  He defended that part of the decision.  He did not defend the part of the decision where the DC ban was held to be an unreasonable restriction.


by JJE on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He does not (2.00 / 1)

I ignore reading your comments as I have once I read the part accusing me of being aliveandkickin.

When you can't hold an intelligent conversation to save your life you accuse people of the most ridiculous things.

A strategy taken among the lowest denominators at mydd.  Hold on to that membership proudly.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whatever (none / 0)

you aren't fooling anyone.  You showed up right when aliveandkicking disappeared and you say the same things in the same style.


by JJE on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: whatever (2.00 / 1)

I also showed up after Hillary lost the nomination. Maybe if you look hard you may see all the women you hate in me.

With that- you are now ignored.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary lost the nomination (none / 0)

on 6/29/08?  This primary was longer than I thought.  


by JJE on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (none / 0)

As you are a Con Law professor, can you help us understand how the 'originalists' on the court, Scalia and his friends who claim to be able to read without interpreting the document (which I consider a huge fallacy and hermeneutic impossibility), can read the 2nd Amendment without recognizing that the 'right to bear arms' is a dependent clause restricted by the previous one, the amendment's central purpose of guaranteeing the right to form militias?  How do they argue it's somehow a statement that stands on its own?

Here are the 2 versions:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The difference in punctuation does not alter the fact that the opening prefatory clause clearly delineates specific purposes for these arms.  This right shall not be infringed as it relates to militia formation.  


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (2.00 / 2)

A well regulated Militia

Those words are where the fight is between the 2 camps.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy question (none / 0)

Scalia/Thomas and the crew are ideological activist judges when it suits their cause.

What, yoi thought Supreme Court justices were above having fraudulent views of the Constitution?


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy question (2.00 / 2)

Brandon,

Strumemerson and Johnny are talking at whole different intellectual level.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy question (none / 0)

Whether they are cynical hypocrites or not, my question stands as it relates to how they can make this a tenable position.  And don't actually agree with roxfoxy that the dispute is over the regulation of the militia.  I think it's about reading 'the right to bear arms' as an independent clause and reading 'people' as individuals as opposed to an aggregate entity.  Both I think are unlikely readings.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy question (2.00 / 1)

Allow me to explain on why I highlighted those words-  

My limited understanding of the issue at hand was that the fight amongst the 2 sides ( for/against gun control)is over the use of those very words in the constitution. i.e. was it intendec as the right to militias to bear arms openly and freely and not citizens?

or was it meant to be a right for all citizens


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (none / 0)

just to clarify, it's Obama who was the con law professor, not me. Sorry I didn't phrase that better.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The trick is originalism (none / 0)

They do some bad law office history to determine what the framers must have meant.  It's a pretty standard originalist trick.

Your question actually assumes that they purport to be textualists, not originalist.  That is true in the case of Scalia.  He claims to be a textualist, not an originalist.  But when it suits him, as here, he becomes an originalist.


by JJE on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The trick is originalism (none / 0)

Helpful distinction.  So the question remains as to how the textualist argument works, and how the originalist one works.  The problems with the first are evident to anyone who has high school level English.  The second seems even harder.  If the framers wanted an independent and unrestricted right to gun ownership, why would they have buried it in a dependent clause?


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Scalia makes a few moves (none / 0)

To get where he wants to go.  If you read the first 20 or so pages of the opinion, which actually shouldn't take that long because of how it's formatted, you can see how he gets there.


by JJE on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DC gun ban (2.00 / 3)

Obama's personal opinion could very well be different than his understanding of the constitutionality of the ban from the perspective of the 2nd Ammendment.

You gotta understand that Obama's not just waxing philosophical when he talks about these constitutional issues; he's a credible scholar whose understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights far surpasses most.  Obama believes in sensible gun control, dislikes the death penalty, and the like, but he also understands that the office that he's running for is President of the ENTIRE United States of America, not just the Democrats of the United States of America.  He will be steward of the Constitution, even the parts he doesn't particularly like.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST

Re: DC gun ban (2.00 / 1)

Given that the majority of the court disagrees with Barack Obama on expanding the death penalty, I'm not sure what you mean.

If Obama does not like the death penalty and understands the Constitution then how can he be a good steward when he undermines the Constitutional process? The Court, respecting precedent, the Eighth Amendment, 44 years of history since any person has been executed for a crime not involving a death, struck down Louisiana's penalty. Obama made no Constitutional argument against that decision, he just stated that he personally finds child rape worthy of execution.


by souvarine on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DC gun ban (none / 0)

You're right. Hillary should've won. Obama is terrible.

I think from now on that's what I'll type in response to your relentlessly anti-Obama diatribes.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"undermine?" (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/25/2010 12/793

"I have said repeatedly I think the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes," said the Illinois senator, speaking to reporters at a hometown press conference. But he added, "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution."

How can you say that he "undermines the Constitutional process" when his stance, as an expert in the field, is simply at odds with the Supreme Court?  It's still legal to disagree from a scholarly level, is it not?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "undermine?" (none / 0)

Because courses he's likely taught on constitutional law should have covered the fact that for the last 50 years, SCOTUS has decided that the death penalty is deemed a proportionate punishment explicitly reserved for cases in which the victim was killed.

Either he's always ignored that fact, or he's disregarding it today. It's pretty obvious to a lot of people that he's disregarding it today.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm no scholar... (none / 0)

...but isn't there a difference between what the Supreme Court rules and other peoples' interpretations of the founding documents?

Do I really need to start getting into Dred Scott v. Sanford and all the other times the Supreme Court maybe made the wrong interpretation?

SCOTUS isn't the Pope.  They're not infallable.  Scholars have every right to disagree with them.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm no scholar... (none / 0)

It's not particularly clear to me that his disagreement with the SCOTUS here is very scholarly. He said that he agrees with states sentencing people to death for 'heinous' crimes. But the SCOTUS has applied here a stricter standard for as long as Barack Obama has been alive. This isn't a case where SCOTUS is deliberately dragging its feet on an evolving issue: in fact, what's disturbing is that Obama is dragging his feet in what is pretty clearly an attempt to not be painted as an unconcerned parent when the constitutional basis for the decision has already been established.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "undermine?" (none / 0)

As a man who aspires to be president he is obliged to respect the other, co-equal branches of government. If he can't provide a Constitutional argument for his opinion, and instead uses emotional appeals to attack the court's judgment, then he is not much different from those who put "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers on their cars.


by souvarine on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Way to jump to conclusions (none / 0)

I haven't read any papers on the full extent of Obama's position on this.  Have you?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way to jump to conclusions (none / 0)

He could have disagreed without being inflammatory.


by souvarine on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ironically (none / 0)

So could you.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 08:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DC gun ban (none / 0)

You've exactly hit on the head part of the reason some of my attorney friends are upset at Obama. He announced that he strongly disagreed with the SCOTUS's decision to deny states to expand the death penalty beyond the precedent set by 50 years of case law for what? I thought he was a professor of constitutional law. His position on the matter is transparently a ploy to look centrist and ignore the factual, constitutional basis for the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abortion (none / 0)

How are his recent comments and the clarification consisent with his support for the Freedom of Choice Act for which he is a cosponsor?


by Blazers Edge on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST

Re: Abortion (none / 0)

because abortion on a healthy fetus late term for no good reason is only Ok if you are a monster of a person most likely.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion (none / 0)

How do you distinguish between early and late term?  Are you using 'viability,' which is something subject to change.  If the question is a woman's right to privacy and to make decisions regarding her own body, this distinction seems arbitrary to me.  If a fetus's right trumps that of the mother, at what point do you confer those rights?  I tend to think that one has to pick either birth or conception for the sake of coherence.  As I privilege the rights of the woman over her body over and above those of the fetus, I don't think the state should restrict it at any term.  I don't think that makes me a monster.  And I am not comfortable labeling a woman who chooses a late term abortion a monster on that alone.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (2.00 / 1)

"I would say he has moved to the center on FISA and DC gun ban issue from his initial position."

Obama on guns, June 2008: "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

Obama said if elected president, he would uphold the rights of gun owners, but he said: "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

Obama on guns, February 2008: "Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

Obama on telecom immunity July 3, 2008: I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

Obama on telecom immunity Jan 28, 2008: No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision.

Obama has not moved any place. Too many people who should know better are simply repeating talking points being issued to the press in McBush's daily conference calls.


by Beren on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (2.00 / 1)


Beren, there is video on Obama in an interview in Feb stating he fully supports the DC ban initiative. Simple question asked and simple answer given by him.

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (none / 0)

I haven't seen that video, but won't ask you to dig it up. It doesn't matter since Obama didn't contradict himself by saying of the SC decision, "Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

When people look hard enough for a reason to find fault, they wind up fabricating what they're looking for. I don't know if you're a PUMA, a McTroll, or simply gullible for GOP spin, but this is what you've done.


by Beren on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [UPDATED ]Obama: I Haven't Moved To The Center (none / 0)

Obama on abortion, July 2008: "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Obama on abortion, April 2008: "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."


by Beren on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:57:39 PM EST

That IS the cutest video (none / 0)

It's so nice to see the daughters. A very loving family, and you gotta know no curse words come from his lips to his wife.  That was the sweetest clip.


by Mae Scott on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.