Comments on So the Difference Between Hillary Clinton and the Post-Primary Version of Obama is What, Exactly?

"a majority would still pick Obama."

do remember though, it was a pretty bare majority even when Obama was Mr. Change. 0.1%, I think.

jebus. everyone just needs to chill to motherfuck out.

Everyone freaking out about Obama needs to keep one thing in mind: Supreme Court nominations. All this whining and kvetching about FISA and 2nd Ammendments and Faith Based blahblahblah. It is all so meaningless when you think that if Ol Man McCain wins, we are F U C K E D. Does voting to end a filibuster on FISA really stack up to possibly three more John Roberts on the bench? Hello? Anyone?

@2 -- FTW.

As poor Eli knows from hearing me drone on about this on more than one occasion, the whole point of the election this time is SCOTUS.

And Eli, I do not quibble with any of your points, but if it is the war now, when will it become the economy? I'M GUESSING BY ABOUT 4 PM TODAY!!! If my stocks lose any more money, I am going to die. Sort of. Thank Jeebus I bought gold two years ago...

Your characterization of Obama and Clinton is nonsensical. I don't even recognize either candidate from your first four paragraphs.

Could you imagine how far to the RIGHT Hillary would have moved by now if she was the nominee?

Just settle down people; the only reason people are freaking out is that main stream media (like the Stranger) are all freaking out. Just remain calm. And I would think that the Stranger staff should spend less time watching cable news.

One of Obama's most appealing aspects is his lack of idealogical rigidity, or, maybe better put, he has a subtle and nuanced approach to public policy.

I'm so sick of absolutism. Despite my disappointment with his support of the FISA law and disagreement with the Supreme's Court's ruling on the death penalty - I don't see this as a huge shift from where he was four months ago.

Finally, until we actually see what he does in office, we can't say whether or not he's going to be to the right or left of where he is now.

Coke is SO much better than Pepsi.

Most of these complaints are just ongoing sour-grapes from the Clinton campaign, and reveal a naive understanding of politics. They also represent straw-man characterizations of many Obama supporters.

McCain is the opponent. Please move on. Discuss more things like the McCains dodging tax payments on one of their many properties.

@5 I don't think Hillary would have had to change tactics at all. She ran her primary campaign like a general election campaign. Obama's tactic was to run his primary campaign to win the nomination, and is now changing to general election tactics. Which is what always scared me about him. What he promised his base was not going to win him the general election. Now he runs the risk of alienating his base, alienating hard core HRC supporters, which could result in people sitting out the election.

I'm not ready to pull my support or my vote, but these signs are very disturbing.

its all amatter of perspective. The differences between Clinton and Obama are pronounced when viewed as a race between the two. When viewed as Clinton/Obama vs. McCain, the differences appear much less. Taking an even further step back and viewing all of the candidates, they're all shite.

Hillary? Who's Hillary? Oh, that's right. The junior senator from NY.

The issue is not whether or not Obama has the right to change his mind. It's how he does it. Is he able to provide a clear path of reasoning that has led him to this new position?

When it comes to FISA, the answer appears to be no: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/02/obama_fisa/index.html

This guy is nothing but a let down. He's this generation's Bill Clinton. I have yet to see any evidence that he has any more scruples than any other politician.

But he's still better than McWingnuts. When in doubt, it's still always best to vote against the Republican.

The comment presumes that HRC would have been exactly the same candidate after the primaries. That seems a bit unlikely to say the least given her track record.
In fact it's telling that Obama courting a general election constituency sounds so much like HRC in the primaries. At his worst Obama sounds like Clinton stretching to seem something liek progressive.

Frankly, Obama and Clinton could be (more) identical in their policies, and I'd still want Obama, simply for the fact that he's not a fucking boomer. Enough of that garbage already. Take your generational psychodramas to the retirement village already.

Speaking as someone who hasn't been particularly thrilled with Obama the last couple weeks, I think Eli's point is pretty valid - it was the war vote that poisoned the well for me with Hillary, and I do still feel (relatively) good about Obama. However, he has been awfully disappointing of late.

Something I'm seeing a lot lately is the idea that Obama must not be criticized lest McCain win in the fall. Maybe I'm over-simplifying, but that seems to be the gist of it. I really don't understand that. The only way to ensure that whatever policies Obama eventually implements will be acceptable to progressive Dems is to make sure he hears us now, and knows specifically what we want and expect from him. When he does something we don't like - FISA, recent Supreme Court decisions, expansion of faith-based initiatives, yadda yadda - it's our obligation to let him know we don't agree. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Obama has charisma; Clinton (unlike her husband) just does not. McCain doesn't either, incidentally. Charisma matters. We elect presidents not only to be the chief political administrator of a large federal republic, where charisma might not matter, but also to serve as head of state, where it does. Other countries usually separate the head of state from the political administrator roles (Canada, U.K., Germany, Japan, etc....), but we do not. Clinton would be a great political administrator, but she's no head of state.

Eli,
Again, I disagree. It isn't the war. Obama simply can't use that issue as the most important in his campaign. Even stalwart opponents of the entry into Iraq like Sen. Levin acknowledge the surge is working. He congratulated Gen. Petraeus and his troops on their performance. There aren't major anti-war demonstrations on the street and it's off the front page. Charles Krauthammer recently argued that McCain should embrace it more as a selling point.

Sen. Obama was against the war from the start but he has the convenience of not voting for it because he wasn't a member of the Senate. I am not convinced that he wouldn't have voted for it had he been senator. Scholar Robert Kagan argues that point.

Yes, I know you and many others on this Slog will disagree but it would be a serious tactical error for the Obama campaign to dwell on this issue (the Iraq War) as that important.

It's really not just the war, it's more the economy.

But, hey, it's not like our financial system is melting down as we speak ... oh, wait, it is.

Obama floats like a butterfly and stings like a wasp (bees die after stinging, wasps don't).

@18, Actually, I agree with you and was about to post something similar. It's well and good for Obama to say he opposed the war from the start, but he wasn't even in the Senate yet when it started so we have no idea how he would've voted if he had been. He could say anything he wants about it now, hindsight is 20/20. A lot of very smart people were for the war at the beginning and changed their minds.

It's the economy. Polls show people across the country are concerned about the economy. That's where Obama needs to focus.

Oh oh! I know! He isn't fucking annoying!

@2, @8, and @9 tied for the win.

@15 - actually, Obama is Edge Gen like me - both Boomer and X-Gen.

Candidate courts idealists in nomination race, moves center for general election? Shocking!

Here's a good run down of all the Obama lane changes: http://www.slate.com/id/2194758/?from=rss

He's definitely got some explaining to do!

Think about this: he gave one speech that no one remembers against the war and which he had to 'recreate' in an ad for his campaign. Then he voted for every war funding bill that has come up since he has been in the Senate. Then his advisers are going around and claiming that he wont; pull all the troops out (leaving something like 60,000+). Then, finally, there's the youtube video of him telling a Chicago reporter that of COURSE he didn't say that he was for pulling the troops out.

Couple ALL of that with his constant shifts towards conservative policy...and you want me to believe that his judgment is somehow superior on the war? That he wouldn't lead us into another one? Or that somehow all of these things are still better than a vote for the Iraq AUMF?

Gee...that's just stupid.

Will, if I ask realllly nicely, will you desist from posting "for the win" posts for a while?

What @18 and @20 said, plus I would add a reminder, he gave one obscure, unrecorded speech against the war in 2002, but that was the extent of his supposedly principled anti-war stance. In subsequent interviews, when he was running for the US and not the Illinois Senate, he expressed support for Bush's policies in Iraq, plus he's done jackshit once he got in the US Senate to stop the war.

And as for the notion that this post-primary Obama is somehow different from the primary version-- have you people been paying attention? The guy has had a penchant for buying into rightwing frames from the get-go. He's been a right-tilting centrist all along. Remember the Donny McClurkin flap? Go back and look at his early statements on Social Security, on federal money to church charities, on globalization, et al. He has never been a liberal and never will be.

And don't respond with the irrelevancy of "well Hillary would've done it to." That is just changing the subject.

That’s what a number of our commenters have been asking, in rather pointed language, as I’ve been Slogging this week about Obama’s recent shift to the center/right.

Boy, you can never give Democrats enough credit for being stupid, can you?

Obama has, essentially, no record on trade. He may be end up pursuing policies that encourage globalization or he may not; but we know Clinton would have.

Most of Obama's moves to the right have been on issues that swing voters care about (guns, god and gays) but that don't really matter very much compared to foreign trade, foreign wars, and domestic infrastructure. And I'll also point out: guns, god and gays are actually places where McCain, ironically, is vulnerable. So Obama's pandering to the swing vote on non-issues. BFD. The only thing he's done that actually sort of matters is the FISA vote, and that may have been good politics: if the vote was a lock with or without him, it doesn't pay to appear weak on terrorism at this juncture.

The difference between Obama and Clinton is the same as it's ever been: Clinton has a much longer and more pronounced record of lying to us and selling us out. Obama may turn out to be the same kind of politician Clinton is, but at least we can hope that he'll come through for us. I couldn't manage even that with Clinton.

This election isn't just about SCOTUS. It's also about trying to save this country from economic collapse and solving the government's staggering fiscal crisis. McCain is not going to do that. If he's elected, he'll be another Herbert Hoover, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I made the Slog! I made the Slog! W00t!

@26 i puke in my mouth every time someone does that. and it happens on every post.
like it's a effing game.

Jubilation T. Cornball & Will in Seattle, you nerds are on notice.

Polls are better than guessing.

@31 -- FTW.

You make a small point. Obama did oppose the war with one speech at the start before voting exactly as HRC did many many times in the Seante to continue funding the stupid war.

So, this is a large part of why he won and why he desreved to win. No quarrel there.

But he didn't lead an anti war movement he didn't go out and organize people against the war he didn't speak out over and over or anything like that and now their positions on what to do aren't that different really.

Now he's moving to the center calling for more TROOPS in the army MORE RELIGION groups getting public dollars LIKING the 2D AMNEMENT liking TELECOM IMMUNITY so all that faith he was some kind of left wing progressive was so much naivete.

And thus he's not so diff. from HRC after all.

Now part of what he's doing I like very much. You betcha. Talk up religion talk up a bigger army DO NOT GET FRAMED AS AN OUT OF TOUCH ACLU TYPE LIBERAL that is how you have to win.

Other things I don't like.

But on the whole props to Obama and anti props to all who claimed he was sooooooo different than HRC and seemed to have forgotten that NO NORTHERN LIBERAL has won the presidency since about 1960. Um, FIFTY YEARS. Because they get painted as caring about cultural issues instead of economic and lose that swing vote.

Hey you know what?
Obama latest ad is claiming credit for reducing welfare rolls 80% in Ill.!!!!

All he did was help implement the Clinton welfare reform. So no. 1 it is a stretch and no. 2:

he is impliedly approving the Clinton welfare reform.

How you like them apples?

He is a great pol. Kind of like Clinton!

Obama's ad

@34 -- Before you slip into a permanent coma, you should learn about the comma.

oh yes on charisma:

yup he's better than HRC and yes she blew it in front part of her campaign but she got some that's why she won more primaries and more voters than he did during the latter part of the campaign after super tuesday.

And I take back what I said JFK was not an ACLU type liberal he went to the right of Nixon on a missle gap and stuff

You fucking idiot. Hillary Clinton does not support the war now. Quit misrepresenting her position. Voting for the war several years ago vs. supporting it now are very different.

Wasn't John Kerry "for the war before he was against it?" So were a lot of other people. Get the fuck over it. What is important is the HERE AND NOW.

Eli, you truly write the most poorly thought out, most hypocritical posts of ANY Slog contributor.

I am experiencing Hillary-'stolgia and buyer's remorse...

it seems like obama was against the war before he was for it.

What has happened to Obama is proof that political advisors can homogenize any presidential candidate.

Who thought Obama was a far-left progressive? Um, ever? When was he ever sold as one?

Did someone ever assume that a pol with a platform like Dennis Kucinich would ever clinch the nomination? He was just probably the most palatable of the centrist candidates.

@26 - no.

The difference is that Obama is going to be president.

This isn't all meaningless. Obama's shift on FISA is different than the other rightward shifts. The Senate will vote on FISA next week. The other issues that are causing a horse-race stir among the media are just his expressions of an opinion: he doesn't have the power to do anything about Supreme Court decisions or a California law right now.

Get upset about those other things if you want but Obama can actually vote next week on whether to uphold the 4th amendment (and allow lawsuits that will expose government lawlessness) or to side with the Bush Administration, the Republicans, and immunize telecommunications companies (and hence the Bush Admin) from clear law breaking (the side he is inexplicably supporting now). This isn't some crazy 'nutroots' tiff. It's very simple. Obama thinks he can "try to look" strong by supporting terror-related legislation. That is the king of stupid, sellout douchebaggery the Democrats have been following for too long.

Obama's vote for FISA will NOT help him in the general election. He needs to vote on his principles and vote against warrantless wiretapping and corporate/Bush immunity. It is principled well articulated positions like that that got him his support in the first place.

Obama's advantage over Clinton all along was his charisma, and that hasn't gone anywhere.

Yes, he's a disappointing centrist on policy, but we knew that. I keep hoping he'll do an FDR once elected and enact sweeping (if pragmatic) progressive change in the face of a deep national crisis. FDR did run as a moderate, just like Obama, and we are likely to face one or more crises that call for more leadership than we've needed for decades. But my hope is probably misguided.

The only thing that really pisses me off with my lowered expectations is his FISA stance, and I'm hoping that was an anomaly.

very insightful, @43 and @35.

Look, to win, and successfully work with a Senate that will probably only have a 57 to 59 Dem margin, just shy of 60 votes needed to avoid cloture, Obama will have to continue in his proven strategy of representing the Nation, not just the people that brought him to where he is.

Most of us know that and have no problem with that.

The ex-Kucinich and ex-Nader supporters of him will complain about it, of course, but other than ECB, most of them don't get to purchase newsprint at bulk prices and buy ink by the metric tonne.

What's worse? Voting to authorize the war or LYING about getting us out? He's a liar! Face facts people. You've been sold a bill of goods!

According to Politico, Obama is "reevaluating his plan" with regard to Iraq, and is no longer planning to utilize a specific timeline for withdrawal.

The war is not an issue of the past, it's still fucking going on and people are still getting fucking killed. Hillary also was talking about going to war in Iran.

"hahahahah!!!"
wtf?

ohhhh noooooo!!!!!
a politician compromised!!!

fucking dillweeds. its not Nader! its a real politician that needs to get in to office to make real change.

infants.

Why do you think that Obama is moving towards the centre? Maybe he's not, maybe he's just BEING HIMSELF, an independently minded politician who knows better than to cater to a leftist ideology. Most Democrats stand for nothing out of a fear of offending someone. Yes, Obama will offend some of the Democrats. And yes, this is good because the Democrats will fail if they keep trying to please everyone and offend no one.