I agree with you when it comes to death penalty, since Obama had always held that position. But it seems difficult to argue that his stance on FISA, on Heller, on NAFTA and on MoveOn were not moves to the center since he has spoken about those issues before — and done so very differently.

The issue here is not that Obama is embracing positions that the Left does not agree with but that he is taking positions that are further to the right than those he had embraced over the past 18 months. That seems hard to deny.

now the NYT acts like this is a betrayal when he says something they don’t want to hear (supports this version of FISA) or doesn’t support gun control wholeheartedly or isn’t against the death penalty.

it is absolutely right for them to express their dissappontment if he disagrees with them, but to pretend that he’s going against his own ideals is their own fantasy.

gun control, the death penalty, and FISA were never central points of his campaign and certainly don’t conform to his vision of a transcendant campaign not tied to the usual left wing talking points. it’s obviously not something that either the left wing (who wants a rigid champion) or the right wing (who wants an easy target) wants, but it is the right thing for obama to do.

- This seems to be Obama’s night in the barrel with the media. That said, he still shows a certain naivete (for lack of a better word) about public statements. He’s in a campaign, not a post-graduate seminar on governmental policy. While he’s not John Kerry (thank goodness), he has the law professor/appellate lawyer predilection for explaining his position in great detail. What works in a Sixth Circuit courtroom doesn’t necessarily work in politics. This emphasis on detail and nuance leaves him exposed to the kind of micro-analysis he’s getting right now. IMO, as a matter of substance, there’s nothing wrong with saying that he would refine his position on Iraq as facts develop and he receives additional input from commanders in the field. As a political matter, voters often make decisions based on their over-all sense of where the candidate is going and his or her thematic consistency, this can be very dangerous. Iraq was a centerpiece of his early campaign. He may have a significant challenge if voters conclude that he’s wandering away from that.

- The danger in becoming a movement candidate is that the movement will devour you as soon as it concludes that you’ve ‘betrayed’ them. I’m seeing some of that in my state from the Dem Left - great consternation over FISA, the 2d Amendment decision, etc. What’s tricky for Obama is that he really never was a movement candidate but he wound up pitching to the Left as part of the ‘change’ meme. His whole career has focused on pragmatic resolution and incremental progress. Even on Iraq, his theme was ‘I’m not against all wars, I’m against stupid wars’. The Left over-looked that in their desire to punish HRC for her early vote and subsequent refusal to engage on the issue. Obama’s FISA vote is a classic example. He was vigorous in attacking the immunity provisions and took an appropriate political stance early on in threatening a filibuster. When it came down to gut-checks, he decided it was critical to eliminate the constitutionally-offensive provisions and cut a deal, saying he’d take on immunity in a separate battle. That’s a very practical decision and makes eminent good sense when you don’t have the votes for the whole package but it’s highly offensive for people who prefer to wave the bloody battle-flag from the ramparts in a losing cause. And as its been for many other senators-qua-candidates, these tactical legislative moves reinforce doubts about what he really stands for, particularly since he doesn’t have an extensive Senatorial record to look to.

Based more on impression than detailed analysis, it seems to me that candidates who campaign on and maintain a consistent broad theme generally do better in presidential elections than those who become ensnared in detailed policy debates.