[Big Mac]

Fox News today featured a short segment on Obama's supposed movement to the center on issues such as entitlements (Welfare and Social(ist) Security) and another area I can't recall right now. Unfortunately, the piece was pretty scant on details. Does anyone know more about this development at this time?

[Eug]

Well, for one thing he wants to expand faith based initiatives.

Obama courts conservatives with new faith program - Yahoo! News

[besson3c]

He's sort of in a lose-lose situation with FISA and some say he has been moving to the center there, but some of the other issues include gun control.. There have been several articles about this so-called movement, I could direct you to a few if you want, I can't remember all of the arguments right now.

[Dork.]

It's pretty standard stuff. During the Primaries, the candidates mostly try and appeal to their respective sides. Then when the nominees are chosen, both of them race towards the center in an attempt to recruit undecided and moderate voters.

I'd be surprised if both candidates didn't move toward the center over the next few months....

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's pretty standard stuff. During the Primaries, the candidates mostly try and appeal to their respective sides. Then when the nominees are chosen, both of them race towards the center in an attempt to recruit undecided and moderate voters.

I'd be surprised if both candidates didn't move toward the center over the next few months....

Hence John McCain's newfound obsession with closing the "gun show loophole" (which I believe only exists in two states anyway).

That said, Obama's new support for faith-based charities doesn't exactly represent a change in philosophy... yet. I think for now we're going to see both candidates take on smaller issues that people haven't been thinking about and come out with centrist opinions on them. It won't be until later on that we'll see them start to renege on the positions they stated during the primaries, because eventually they'll run out of issues that they haven't covered yet.

[Randman]

He's a politician and will say and do anything to get elected, just like any other politician.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, for one thing he wants to expand faith based initiatives.

I didn't support it before and I don't support it now.
It opens up the door to some very questionable organizations to get money.

And you can bet at some point Obama is going to have to answer if he'd be okay with Trinity getting federal money to support their out-reach BLT programs. I am sure that will be a funny little dance to watch him do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And you can bet at some point Obama is going to have to answer if he'd be okay with Trinity getting federal money to support their out-reach BLT programs.

It's probably just a BL program now as everyone's paranoid over tomatoes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but some of the other issues include gun control.

He's going to have to move on this.

Illinois has really strict gun laws, so his stance up to now has matched that.

Most notably, he was on the record in 1998 as checking these options on a "show your position" type questionnaire:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

That first one essentially outlaws any handgun that isn't a revolver, and any rifle that isn't bolt or lever action. The second is vague, but an idea of where he's coming from on that can be ascertained from the first.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I didn't support it before and I don't support it now.
It opens up the door to some very questionable organizations to get money.

And you can bet at some point Obama is going to have to answer if he'd be okay with Trinity getting federal money to support their out-reach BLT programs. I am sure that will be a funny little dance to watch him do.

Why? Wright is retired, and Obama has made it clear that he feels that the church has been a part of some great outreach programs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's pretty standard stuff. During the Primaries, the candidates mostly try and appeal to their respective sides. Then when the nominees are chosen, both of them race towards the center in an attempt to recruit undecided and moderate voters.

I'd be surprised if both candidates didn't move toward the center over the next few months....

One could also make the argument that this has never really worked though. It's really hard to say whether this is campaign strategy, or Obama's beliefs. Oibermann made the case that Obama may have voted for FISA so that once Bush is out of office, those responsible for nefarious wiretapping can be held accountable so that we can learn from this. He also said that if he didn't, he could be painted as soft on terrorism. He seemed unsure as to what Obama's strategy or position will be there though.

[Gee-Man]

A good portion of this "Obama is moving to the center" meme is based on some incorrect assumptions about what his positions really are, with a lot of people thinking Obama is more liberal than he actually is in reality. On many of these positions, he's always been a centrist. On the faith-based thing, he has a prominent passage in his first book about getting faith-based organizations involved with the government. On the death penalty for child rape, he had previously stated that he believed the death penalty should apply in especially heinous crimes like child rape. On the constitutional right to own a gun, Obama has said prior that he believes there is a Second Amendment right for an individual to own a gun, but also that he believes that gun control laws generally don't interfere with that right.

The only area where you can make a credible case that Obama is moving to the center is on FISA. On that issue he's taken a rather split position - on one hand, he's saying he's opposed to telecom immunity, which is a very liberal position to take (BTW, I *really* hate the fact that wanting companies who broke the law to be held accountable for their actions is now considered a "liberal position" in this day and age. Just sad.). On the other hand, he's basically embraced a broad expansion of executive warrantless wiretapping and reduction of 4th Amendment rights that many liberals, myself included, are not at all happy with. However, I'm not really sure whether this is how he really feels about it or whether it's a calculated move to the center during the election. My gut tells me it's the former, which is highly disappointing, but at least I can understand it even though I strongly disagree with it. Either way, we are all just guessing whether Obama is truly a centrist on this issue or pandering for votes, and nobody knows that except Obama himself. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to try to get into the heads of politicians. I'd rather judge them on what they say and do rather than what I imagine they are thinking. The media wastes far too much time in politics during election years trying to mind-read the candidates to determine the "true Obama" or the "true McCain".

A lot of the noise you hear about this is from disappointed liberals who thought, incorrectly, that Obama is a true-blue progressive liberal on ALL of the issues they care about. Conservatives seem to think this too. But Obama isn't a far-left liberal, and he never was - liberals just projected that on to him without truly examining his record and statements. He's certainly left-leaning, no question, because he supports things like universal health care, but he does have strong centrist and occasionally conservative leanings on significant specific issues. All this is pretty apparent if you read any of his speeches and books, but apparently some weren't really paying attention.

[besson3c]

Interesting post Gee-man... Thanks!

[besson3c]

Obama's statement on his FISA vote:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

A good portion of this "Obama is moving to the center" meme is based on some incorrect assumptions about what his positions really are, with a lot of people thinking Obama is more liberal than he actually is in reality.

On most issues, Obama is pretty much well left of center. All you have to do is check his voting record. Of course, he equivocates and of late has supported things to make him APPEAR more centrist, That doesn't make him a moderate or centrist though. Far from it. Anymore than McCain supporting a few conservative ideals makes him a conservative. People who try to suggest otherwise are just trying to make him appear less scary to people who are actually centrists. I'm not sure it's going to work though. His record can speak for itself.

[Dork.]

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com,

my.barackobama.com, huh? Let's see what's there....

The Blog page has a lot of the discussion over the FISA stuff. I think it's interesting that he's letting folks post stuff like that on his site. Someone here has already noted (Probably the Cap'n) that what Obama is doing is basically the same Social Networking stuff that's been all over the Internet the past few years. I'm surprised nobody has been using it this effectively for Politics until now.

Oh, and the Groups sections is also interesting:

Walmart Democrats for Obama

NC Barbershops for Change

No sight of the "Fuzzy Wombats for Obama" group yet....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

On most issues, Obama is pretty much well left of center. All you have to do is check his voting record. Of course, he equivocates and of late has supported things to make him APPEAR more centrist, That doesn't make him a moderate or centrist though. Far from it. Anymore than McCain supporting a few conservative ideals makes him a conservative. People who try to suggest otherwise are just trying to make him appear less scary to people who are actually centrists. I'm not sure it's going to work though. His record can speak for itself.

What issues has McCain broken with the Conservative party on within the last couple years?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

my.barackobama.com, huh? Let's see what's there....

The Blog page has a lot of the discussion over the FISA stuff. I think it's interesting that he's letting folks post stuff like that on his site. Someone here has already noted (Probably the Cap'n) that what Obama is doing is basically the same Social Networking stuff that's been all over the Internet the past few years. I'm surprised nobody has been using it this effectively for Politics until now.

Oh, and the Groups sections is also interesting:

Walmart Democrats for Obama

NC Barbershops for Change

No sight of the "Fuzzy Wombats for Obama" group yet....

I would happily join Fuzzy Wombats for Obama if you were to start it

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What issues has McCain broken with the Conservative party on within the last couple years?

For one:

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index...d=576361&rfi=8

McCain has made a career out of asserting his "independence" and more centrist views than the far right in his party - to the point where his nomination was never assured due to the lack of support by conservatives. It's not a stretch for him to reach out to the center independents when he's been doing it all his life.

On the other hand the "meme" that Obama is moving to the center is a ploy being crafted by scared liberals who know that a whole lot of his positions don't jibe with a centrist point of view. I'm not sure it will work. He's going to have to win based on the notion that he's a nice guy with lots of charisma that remind people of a movie star they'd like to see in the news more often. I doubt he'll do it (except for his democrat base) mainly on the issues. He's going to have to equivocate and flop a whole lot more than McCain if he's going to convince people he's the right guy, and that won't help his imagine as someone who'll say anything to get elected.

[besson3c]

B.S. stupendousman. While there are one or two issues where McCain disagrees with the rest of his party, by far and large he has voted right with them on pretty much everything over the past couple of years. I believe I read that he hasn't voted differently than his party at all this year.

McCain may have at one point been a "maverick", but he can't claim that within the last couple of years. It just isn't so.

As far as Obama, I'm not sure exactly what you consider to be in the center, so this is hard to talk about without this frame of reference...

[Dork.]

McCain has taken some positions in the past that have bucked the Republican party. I'm pretty sure that McCain-Feingold wasn't warmly recieved in the Republican party. His stance on immigration has already been covered here. He was also one of the few Senators not willing to give Bush a free pass with his "aggressive" interrogation techniques, having some knowledge of the subject himself.

However, I'm not sure where stupendousman's notion that Obama moving to the center is a "ploy". I thought it was common knowledge that candidates start to move toward the center once the general election campaign season starts, to attract moderates and undecided voters. Like I said, I would be surprised if either candidate doesn't do that....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

McCain has taken some positions in the past that have bucked the Republican party. I'm pretty sure that McCain-Feingold wasn't warmly recieved in the Republican party. His stance on immigration has already been covered here. He was also one of the few Senators not willing to give Bush a free pass with his "aggressive" interrogation techniques, having some knowledge of the subject himself.

However, I'm not sure where stupendousman's notion that Obama moving to the center is a "ploy". I thought it was common knowledge that candidates start to move toward the center once the general election campaign season starts, to attract moderates and undecided voters. Like I said, I would be surprised if either candidate doesn't do that....

McCain-Feingold was a long time ago, and he has since reversed his decision on the interrogation techniques by voting with Bush on the use of waterboarding.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

McCain-Feingold was a long time ago, and he has since reversed his decision on the interrogation techniques by voting with Bush on the use of waterboarding.

If I recall correctly, McCain considered the waterboarding bill that passed the Senate to be a compromise that moved things in the right direction. Then Bush used a signing statement to say that any limitations he didn't like do not apply to the executive branch, and McCain was hopping mad about it. I believe a President McCain would not continue Bush's policies on this issue.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

McCain-Feingold was a long time ago, and he has since reversed his decision on the interrogation techniques by voting with Bush on the use of waterboarding.

So your argument is that he went right to get the nomination over the last couple of years and now that he's got it figures he'll stay with his independant ways? That doesn't change my claims.

I understand that during an election people tend to TRY and go to the center. My point is that McCain doesn't really have to go anywhere on most issues, but Obama has a LONG way to stretch to get anywhere near centrists or conservative democrats. His task will be much harder.

[besson3c]

How is voting with Bush independent? I don't get it...

[Dork.]

One of the dirty little secrets about Presidential politics is that it is much harder for a Senator or other legislator to get elected President than it is for a Governor or another executive, because any legislator's voting record is up for scrutiny. And most bills have things in them that are unfavorable to a legislator, but they vote for anyway because there are other things that are favorable in the bill. There's also a bunch of back-scratching and horse-trading where one Senator will pledge his support to a bill if a colleague promises to support one of his bills in return. If you ask a senator "Why did you vote this way on this particular bill", the explanation will probably not fit nicely in a sound bite. (Especially if you are a haughty, French-looking Democratic senator from Massachusetts with the charisma of a beached whale....)

Governors get a free pass in this respect, for some reason. Perhaps signing a bill has a different connotation than voting for it....

You simply can't look at the "Yeas" or "Nays" and have a full picture of any person's philosophy. And McCain's overall philosophy has been closer to the center than Bush's. (Until recently, when McCain has found religion in regard to taxes and decided the Bush Tax Cuts were a Good Thing after all....)

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What issues has McCain broken with the Conservative party on within the last couple years?

You mean in the two years he's been working to capture the Republican Party's nomination that he wasn't able to take in 2000 because he was viewed as not conservative enough? What a shocker he moved to the right until that happened.


Almost two years to the date of the 08 election he began to make inroads with the section of the party that wasn't comfortable with him. Kicked off by him having to swallow his pride and make peace with Falwell at the end of 2006.
If you don't cling to the necessity for him to do that in the short run there's not much of an argument that McCain hasn't been a centrist for the other 25 years of his political career.

Obama on the other hand taking on a token position with gun control does not make him a centrist. Its going to make little difference in the lives of most people if he keeps firearm laws the same but taxes them to high heaven to fund his borderline socialist programs here and abroad.

I am sure however that Obama is more a religious adherent than McCain. Which would be a good thing to the religiously conservative folks if not for the fact he found god among a group of black ethnocentric counter culturalists.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

You mean in the two years he's been working to capture the Republican Party's nomination that he wasn't able to take in 2000 because he was viewed as not conservative enough? What a shocker he moved to the right until that happened.

BINGO.

I am sure however that Obama is more a religious adherent than McCain. Which would be a good thing to the religiously conservative folks if not for the fact he found god among a group of black ethnocentric counter culturalists.

That and his "faith" doesn't really jibe with the beliefs (as he states them) of the majority of the "religious". That's what that Dobson guy had been pointing out the past month or so.

[besson3c]

Borderline socialist programs? Do you guys ever grow tired just throwing out this same old tired language without so much as actually making it clear what you are referring to? It's like taking turns giving each other hand jobs in the form of invoking knee jerk reactions.

You guys may be right about McCain actually being more centrist, but I guess we'll never really know what is really inside his (or Obama's) head.

[Dork.]

According to these folks, Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007. More liberal than Hillary, more liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal even than the nutjob from Vermont who openly admits he's a Socialist!

Their methodology seems to be to take a look at key votes (whatever that means), figure out whether the vote is on an issue that is "conservative" or "liberal" in nature, then rate each Senator based on what percentage of their votes went one way or the other. (They have a whole page devoted to comparing Clinton to Obama. For instance, here is a vote they tabulated where Clinton's position (Nay) was considered Conservative, and Obama's position (Yay) was considered Liberal:

Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators.

Is this positon really Liberal or Conservative? I suppose it depends on whoever the latest scandal was about before this vote.

Another interesting vote in which both Senators voted Conservative (Yay):

Express the sense of Congress that funds for U.S. troops in the field should not be cut off.

This vote expressed the "Sense of Congress", which is not binding, and yet, "Sense of the Congress" votes appear to be given equal weight in this survey. Furthermore, it appears that there is no middle ground in this analysis: cutting off funding to troops fighting in the field is rather preposterous, and would be political suicide for legislators from all but the most anti-war districts, and yet it is presented here as the "Liberal" viewpoint. I wonder what other categorizations are equally presposterous?

It is interesting to note that this is the same survey that was used in 2004 to justify the fact that John Kerry was the most Liberal senator in Congress in 2003, even more liberal than Hillary and Ted Kennedy! (He would probably have been more liberal than the nutjob from Vermont who openly admits he's a Socialist, but said nutjob was in the House then.) I wonder how they determine what "key" votes are, and whether they have the Democratic Presidential candidates in mind when they choose them....

[stupendousman]

Hillary's voting record has been more conservative than Obama, and likely Kerry was well. That's one of the reasons she couldn't seal the deal with the party base who are liberal. She's been running for President since she was elected to office, so she knew she'd have to fight against her liberal credentials after the primaries and has taken strategic positions that she felt would help her in a general presidential election. She just figured her nomination was a sure thing and miscalculated.

Regardless, the facts are that Obama is pretty liberal in his positions if you just look at what he's said and how he's voted. He may take an odd exception here and there, maybe for strategic reasons during an election year, but I don't think he's going to pull off the notion that he's 'centrist'. I also think that Obama is going to be hard pressed to paint McCain as Bush III because the mantle of "centrist" and GOP whipping boy has been on him for quite awhile.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I also think that Obama is going to be hard pressed to paint McCain as Bush III because the mantle of "centrist" and GOP whipping boy has been on him for quite awhile.

I would have agreed with that if McCain had kept his distance from the Bush tax cuts. But it appears he's going to pursue a similar economic policy to Bush, so at least in that respect the label will fit.

Can Obama pull off coming across as more centrist? Maybe not, but he'll have to to win the General Election....

[macdude]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I would have agreed with that if McCain had kept his distance from the Bush tax cuts. But it appears he's going to pursue a similar economic policy to Bush, so at least in that respect the label will fit.

Can Obama pull off coming across as more centrist? Maybe not, but he'll have to to win the General Election....

I think Obama is less centrist than McCain, however, I think that is something most Conservatives dislike. Many of the Limbaugh-esque voters (that make up a large portion of the Repub. Party) would have never chosen McCain as their top guy. They were looking more for Romney.

Obama has been known for a while as harder left leaning than John McCain has been right leaning. I think that is one of the reasons he is trying to move towards the center.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. I certainly do not think that a more centrist view will sway the Independents, a constituency that is a big part of this election, towards one candidate or another.

[Athens]

Wow

This place seems so dead compared to when I was last here. ...

Obama is going to play left, right center to win. I just wish I knew where he really stood on things. I don't trust him as much as I trust McCain.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Wow

This place seems so dead compared to when I was last here. ...

Obama is going to play left, right center to win. I just wish I knew where he really stood on things. I don't trust him as much as I trust McCain.

You don't know where either of them stand on things aside from what they say their stated positions are, which are widely documented. Either of them can, and should change their minds to reflect reality when/if there are relevant changes.

Stepping back and leaving the score keeping aside, it is a shame that so many citizens fall into this silly game of "find-the-flip-flopper" - it's never-ending, pointless, and often counter-productive. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind for legitimate purposes (other than scoring political points, which I don't consider a legitimate purpose), this is not some sort of character flaw. Being inarticulate and not being able to make it clear what your position is at any time is a problem, but an intentional change in policy for the right reasons is not a bad thing.

We should expend more effort examining the motivations for a change in heart rather than just keeping a tally on the total number of flip flops. Honestly, one of the flaws with this current administration is that they *haven't* ever changed course, it's been consistent to a fault when things are not working as they should.

[Athens]

what about when you tell one group of people one thing and another group of people another thing just to score points? Look at what happened with Nafta and the leak that came out in Canada how he told Us not to worry he just wanted to score some points in Idaho.

[besson3c]

How do we know that meeting really happened as it has been characterized?

[Athens]

We dont but it still casts some doubt.

[besson3c]

So your lack of trust is primarily a gut feeling?

[Gee-Man]

I have an interesting theory about the "I don't know where he stands" assertion that's common in every presidential election in my lifetime. In my observance, what that statement means on many occasions is that a person is looking for a candidate they can predict, not where they actually stand on the issues. In other words, we strive to label a person according to our own thoughts - "liberal", "conservative", "anarchist", etc. Once a candidate gets put into a box labeled either "liberal" or "conservative", human nature takes over and people feel more comfortable knowing that the politician's every response will be entirely predictable, which makes our brains happy (we like predicting things, it releases happy chemicals in our brains).

In the real world, however, politicians like Obama really confuse the hell out of this thought process. Obama is a liberal, but he sometimes takes centrist and conservative stances in unpredictable ways, which causes our brain's processing to get confused, hence the "I don't know where he stands" response. He's "supposed" to react according to the pre-defined liberal labels on gun control, the death penalty, and other issues, so if he doesn't fit the mold that we've already assigned to him, we wonder if this is the "real" Obama or not. Occam's Razor says that the mostly likely reason is that as a human being, Obama has positions that don't fit the liberal lable, even though he's generally a liberal in many other issues.

Interestingly, if you read the liberal blogs (and the conservative ones leading up to the nomination), you'll find the exact same sentiment expressed about McCain. McCain is a conservative who is a centrist and liberal on very specific issues, and when he talks about those issues, he gets hit with the same "I don't know where he stands" response that Obama gets.

This doesn't preclude real pandering or flip-flopping on issues by either Obama or McCain. Both candidates can be genuinely unpredictable, and at the same time, shift to positions that are politically expedient. Human beings are complicated. So I will grant that Obama will probably pander at some point between now and November, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence that he's done so. There's no move to the center from what I can see, his positions are pretty much the same as they've always been.

But McCain is an interesting character - on some positions, like global warming, he is genuinely a centrist and at odds with his party (only to a small degree, he still doesn't support wind and solar like a liberal might). On the other hand, he's been flip-flopping like a fish on the local pier on a wide variety of issues recently. Some liberal blogs have been attempting to catalog the number of position shifts, and the count is up to 48 shifts in position. Is this "moving to the right"? Hard to tell, but a lot of these are mighty suspicious, especially when he tells voters he's going to vote against bills he's actually sponsored.