The meme these days is that Obama is spinning to the center, the more critical saying he is flip flopping and so forth. It should be underlined that on various issues, Obama's positions have been consistent. In his book, Obama supported the death penalty in cases society deems heinous (e.g., rape of children). Working with religious community groups was an important building block in his rise to power. He has not been as anti-occupation as many (Glenn Greenwald suggested yesterday, the majority of the American people) would like. And so on. This sort of thing turned people off before, and those who think these sort of things are new get more informed.
[I don't know his past comments on guns, but the standard line for Dems these days is an individual rights view with regulations, so supporting Heller would not be that surprising either ... but as the NYT said, if Obama supports local regulations, that was what the handgun ban was -- not a top down federal law, but akin to Chicago banning handguns.]
But, those who want to take Obama off the hook really have to get a clue too. The key point is the FISA amendment, which some just want to ignore. The problem is threefold. One, on the merits, bad. Both on civil liberties and as a check of Bush/executive power. Dodd's great floor remarks underlines the point. Two, he promised to filibuster a bill with immunity, so he comes off as a phony. Ditto his past comments on warrants etc. -- now, not so important, huh? Finally, politically, it's a bad call -- he framed ("keep us safe" / "compromise") things using the Republican playbook. Various comments on message boards and the like, however, are of the "get over it" variety.
You can take this from Broder-like commentators, but TPM message boards? Boards that in effect call the critics anti-Obama or whiners? The framing issue is what really upset someone over at TPM and is an ongoing theme at Glenn Greenwald's abode. This is a problem with a response to a question on late term abortions -- he opposes them for "mental distress." See here for extended discussion, but again, problematic on more than one level.
First, and foremost, it walks into Republican framing. This is especially the case if you actually look at the numbers involved here (two clinics perform third trimester abortions, but surely emergency procedures are performed elsewhere). And, as with FISA, it leads to "compromises" that do a lot more than the bare words or intention of a statute might. See, the "partial abortion" ban. Second, there are various situations when it is a bad position. For instance, fetuses with severe fetal abnormalities that do not endanger the woman's physical health or children who are victims of sexual abuse.
And, there is the mix of positions that can be somewhat problematic and/or might [also] be a matter of framing. Let's not be shocked that the media can be pro-McCain or wants to make a story out of what turns out to be fairly bland statements. The sign of a good candidate is one who can handle such things. So, I would not take Obama totally off the hook for saying he will 'refine' his Iraq policy per facts on the ground. If you want to call the press or whatever you want to call the likes of Chris Matthews and AP reporters (TPM is a good source for McCain coverage, including his fans in the media) of a certain sort idiots, but that's how things work. You have to use your words carefully.
Ditto, those that complain about the media without also saying "uh, why is McCain so gung ho about saying Obama now supports McCain's position?" Maybe, because no one likes McCain's position? IOW, the idea is not just to complain, but frame things the right thing for your side too. Finally, Obama's facts on the ground include things like stability. Uh huh. That suggests how -- if you want -- you can always find some reason to keep troops there. And, a self-fulfilling prophecy arises.
I'm not part of the "St. Obama" brigade [e.g., one of the abortion posts cited just "loves" him], so try to look at his campaign with a nuanced eye. There are things to be concerned about, including "compromise" meaning sacrificing basic liberties, sometimes for nothing much in return. This is sometimes is the basic definition of "centrist," a concept that should not leave such a bad taste in one's mouth. But, given how the national government handled things of late, with a special nod to the Republicans, it is a brand that requires more faith than some are willing to supply.
I think we are ready for it ... more importantly, it is the best we can hope for at the moment. But, the devil is in the details.