Michael Tomasky, writing for the Guardian, takes away some of the heart burn of Obama's recent "centrist" positions. He seems to understand what Obama is doing better than I do, so I thought I should share with others who are troubled about these positions.
Michael Tomasky says "Obama must compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected."
Take for instance his position on the child rape Supreme Court case involving an African-American man. Tomasky can imagine the attack ads that "could be made against Obama if he'd taken the positiiion here some liberals wanted him to take. An image of Kennedy appears on the screen, photoshopped to make him look terrifying. Sinister music swells. The voiceover intones: 'Barack Obama wants criminals like Patrick Kennedy to have a chance to go free so they can rape children again.' And so on."
Tomasky continues: "That one ad, aired repeatedly in the right states, could in my view change the election. We know that ads like that have worked wonders for the GOP in the past." Tomasky does not think things have changed much in our election since Dukakis ran. The memory of Willie Horton attack ads seem burned in his memory as they are ours who lived through them.
Tomasky also explains Obama's stand on the FISA bill. I find that one easier to accept: national security trumps telecom immunity. (My view, not the particulars Tomasky points out.) Obama cannot seem to appear wear on national security. It is the one area Americans seem to think McCain is better on--heaven only knows why!
Tomasky ends his column with this statement: "People will naturally disagree on which compromises are necessary and which ones aren't. What people shouldn't disagree on is that some are. The man's not running for president of Hyde Park."