...or something like that.
To conflate Obama's conservative side with GOP or Blue Dog conservatism is to not have paid attention to what the guy's been saying and doing all the way back to his Harvard days.
He has proven himself intensely interested in repairing the culture of politics -- which has been broken for decades and is only getting worse.
Like it or not, he is more interested in this problem than any other. Clearly, he believes this problem is blocking the kind of fundamental change that all of us here think is crucial.
Whereas a Blue Dog (or a Republican) owes tangible fidelity to, say, corporate interests, Obama views corporations as long-term players within a system. They are powerful members of the American family who will not be ignored. I know, corporations aren't really people, but they are treated as such and are a formidable force to be reckoned with. To refuse to demonize them is a form of conservatism (because it rejects revolution) -- but that's very different from embracing their conservative ideology.
You can agree or disagree, but Obama does not believe any player will respond productively in the long term if they feel they are entirely disenfranchised from whoever is currently at the head of the table. Same goes for military interests. Same goes for the opposing party. You may think Mitch McConnell's tactic of polarization is the smart way to go. But Obama vehemently disagrees. He is in pursuit of a larger vision.
This is too down-and-dirty a diary to document his philosophy, from his conciliatory actions at Harvard, his books, his political compromises, etc, but a close reading of Obama reveals a very clear picture of someone who is inclined toward liberalism, but who believes the path to meaningful lasting progress is not winning righteous, short-term battles.
Obama is looking to slow the pendulum swings of recent decades that have amounted to political gridlock.
He is fiercely dedicated to a political/cultural vision of a transformed public sphere. It's quite a balancing act he's attempting: dealing with the nation's fires (great recession, wars, security, etc), slowly planting seeds of progress (health care, middle class, safety net, LGBT rights, etc), while at the same time not giving up on what he considers his macro concern -- inching all of us to learn to negotiate in more honest, mature ways.
It may be an experiment. But it's clearly an experiment he believes must be tried.
You may think his priorities are foolish. Fine. Say that. But it's simply not correct to conflate him with a traditionally conservative politician whose goal is power, money, preservation of social castes, and reelection.
It's like if there was a huge family feud which, over the years, had gotten increasingly ugly and destructive. Obama would be the elder determined to open lines of communication again. He might personally agree that poorer family members were taken advantage of by a selfish rich uncle, but he would know that ostracizing that powerful uncle would merely cause the uncle to double down with his selfishness. The only hope of lasting change (and concomitant redistribution of wealth) comes from persuading the family to start speaking in the same room again.
In other words, Obama's leadership style is heavily informed not just by pragmatism, but also by empathy. Since Harvard he has shown himself to be extraordinarily dedicated to open communication with all sides. Right now, it's easy to call this foolishness (seeing how much Republicans enjoy spitting on his extended hand), but only time will tell if his dedication pays off in the long run.
History will give us an idea of whether Obama was wise beyond the times, or simply naive. But to compare him to Blue Dogs is to compare apples to oranges.