
This Barack Obama-loving blogger has taken a few steps back in recent weeks, disappointed as she has been with what appears to be Obama's pandering to the right (blech!), which he denies. Things like his plan to maintain Bush's faith-based initiatives, an apparent shying away from his Iraq timetable (not true, incidentally), his support of FISA legislation, and a general move to the center have been off-putting — not fatally so, but still — to his ardent supporters.
In an interview with Matt Lauer this morning, Obama said that people who claim he's flip-flopping and moving too far to the center in order to gain GOP and conservative independent votes haven't really been listening to him.
He also addressed an interview he did with his wife and daughters for Access Hollywood. Despite its adorableness, Obama said the attention it's got across the media world has given him pause, and he regrets putting his children in front of the camera. "We wouldn't do it again," he said, "and we won't be doing it again."
I'm starting to lose respect for him as well. I don't like that he's pandering to the right. Some may call it politics, but the right never panders to the left. They've got an "Eff you" attitude for anyone that doesn't feel their agenda. Why can't the left have the same attitude?
And when Obama noticed the attention his family's interview got, was he making a note of Sandra Rose? Her train of thought is troubling.
Sandra Rose made no sense whatsoever and epitomizes a lot of what is wrong in our community. How is the fact that the Obamas' daughter is intelligent and articulate, something to be criticized? She was raised by two Ivy league educated dynamic people. She should confident and know that her opinion is valued.
She should be praised for her performance on camera.
I know Obama can't stay to the left of center if he wants to win. This is the part of the campaign where the compromises begin. I only hope that trading some of his beliefs pays off for him in November. Otherwise it will have been for nothing.
Hmmm… I don't really see it as pandering. In my mind, Obama has always made it clear that he supports bipartisanship. Rather than making decisions based on party lines, he is presenting a more rounded, a more whole agenda that represents his views on various subjects.
That actually seems more human to me. Just because you belong to a particular party doesn't mean you agree with exactly how that party operates. Nor do I have to agree with everything the candidate believes in, as long as I agree with what's important to me.
It's the result of being trapped in the 2 party system. What is wrong with having a mixed bag of ideological views? I tend to be more on the Republican, fiscally conservative side of things, but with a Democratic social view. The two don't always balance (if I have lower taxes, how are the social programs that I think are so important to be funded?), but they do blend and are constantly being reshaped.
I take no issue with expanding the definition of party affiliation.
I do take issue with adopting a stance and then softening or downright changing that stance midstream. That seems disingenuous.
I love that people are finally starting to put down the pitcher of kool aid, and really see Barack.