I would agree that less polarizing politics is change, although there are several ways of pursuing that. Obama has also stated strong fairly liberal stands regarding, campaign finance, civil liberties, trade and Iraq and to a certain extent he has backed off on those. Now he is careful in that he has left himself wiggle room in his rhetoric, particularly in regard to Iraq, but no doubt many of his supporters supported him because they felt he wouldn't just take strong stands regarding those positions but would see to enacting them. Now if Obama's positions regarding those aren't going to be so radically different from the current Admin's would that constitute the change that? If the cost of less polarizing politics is to compromise with conservative positions is that the change that people are expecting out of Obama? My own view is that for many, not all, of his supporters that isn't and which is why we are seeing something of a backlash towards Obama from groups like Move On and Daily Kos. To a point this was to be expected as Obama's nebulous rhetoric meant that many groups could project their own expectations on him but now that he is taking positions those aren't going to be able to meet up with what every group out there expected from him. Whether this is bad or good, since you seem determined to place a value judgement on this or at least project one on my comments. Depends on issue by issue. I disagree with his stance on the FISA and the Faith based program, I have no problem with him refining his Iraq policy (then again I never was one who believed that a rapid withdrawl would be possible), I think he is being hypocritical on campaign finance but I think the campaign finance system is broken anyway so I don't think it is bad that he is bypassing it, and I'm thrilled that he is backing off his protectionist rhetoric on trade. Obama compromising overall isn't a problem but that may be that I never bought into Obama's lofty rhetoric on change and I supported the person who got condemned as a sellout anyway.
So as a self admitted liberal are you giving him a pass now on his compromises since he already has made changes to how campaigns and campaign finance is conducted?
In no way has Obama changed his stance on Iraq. It is exactly as it's always been. This is what Obama said way back in 2007 at a debate in New Hampshire It is completely false and the media should be ashamed of themselves for being hoodwinked into buying the McCain story that what he said is a flip flop. Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq in the slightest. So even though the media bought into the falsehood about an Iraq flip flop, maybe we in the D&D can stop perpetuating it.
Because everything hasn't changed doesn't mean nothing has changed. I'm not giving him a pass. I've already expressed my displeasure at his stance on FISA. Campaign finance is tricky. I do believe he went back on the intent of his words, but at the same time he left himself wiggle room, and technically didn't break his word. I think his campaign now is far more publicly financed than if it was taking money from the govt. He has more than a million donors, and that number is growing. That is true public financing and by not being beholden to do favors to those that give in large amounts it accomplishes the same thing. Furthermore he backed up his talk by instructing the DNC to operate under basically the same guidelines as his campaign did. So while he has backed off of campaign finance reform in the manner he talked about earlier, it isn't as if he's backed off of it, and tricked everyone. It's not like he's cosy-ing up to big money lobbyists and special interests. He's doing the opposite of that. So even in campaign finance he is enacting a change, and one that is good for politics.
I think that it will raise a truly minimal amount compared to all the money he will make from the million plus donors who give him very small donations. I also think that even his plan to raffle off backstage access to anyone who donates as much as $5 will probably make more money for his campaign. It is one way of raising money for Obama, but because it isn't the main way or only way I'm not worried about him being in the pocket of these people the way a lot of other politicians would be, who rely mostly on this type of fundraising. I don't have anyway of knowing that this is the case, but I'm just guessing.
You got that email too?!? for anyone who's interested Obama has also set up part of his website for people to suggest the agenda for the Dem platform for the election. from the site... Listening to America: the Democratic Platform for Change Host a Platform Meeting Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a “platform” that outlines the party’s position on a variety of issues. Traditionally, the platform is written by paid professionals and then presented to the American people. This year, that’s going to change. From July 19 to July 27, everyday people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities. From Atlanta, Georgia to Muncie, Indiana, from Bangor, Maine to Eugene, Oregon, Americans will meet to talk about what issues are most important to them and what should be at the heart of the Democratic platform for change. The results of these Platform Meetings will be incorporated into the formal process that culminates in the adoption of the platform at the Democratic Convention in August. A few participants may even be invited to appear and testify at the National Hearing and at the Convention! You can write the next chapter in the history of the Democratic Party. Host an event in your own community. We’ve prepared all the materials that you need to host. Or, if you’d prefer, find an event near you. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/listening/
