Barack W. Bush?

No kidding. Someone had the nerve to suggest such a comparison.

Loathe as I am to say it, Barack Obama supports some of the same positions as George Bush because-some of George Bush's positions are actually logically sensible! In fact many of the so-called flip-flops coming from Obama in recent weeks represent rephrasings of his positions or adjustments to changing situations. Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do? I sure don't want a president who does not change his policies to suit changing circumstances.

On gun rights, Barack Obama is suddenly a gun rights supporter because he backed the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the rights of the individual. Nonsense. Barack Obama has always been in favor of affirming the rights of the individual while at the same time, supporting regulations that save lives in crime-ridden urban areas like his native Chicago. From the recent commentary you'd think he's in cahoots with the NRA...

On the death penalty and the "mental distress" issue of abortion, Obama is simply responding to new Supreme Court decisions. Where in the rules of politics does it say that you have to either completely support or completely oppose a policy? One of the great injustices of politics is that pro-choice is somehow equated with pro-abortion. As if liberals spend their free time getting abortions for fun. Pro-choice politicians would like nothing more than for the number of abortions to be zero. Plenty of pro-choice politicians have affirmed their personal opposition to abortion while maintaining that the decision rests solely with a woman and her doctor, not the government.

Concerning Obama's support for faith-based initiatives, there is nothing wrong with supporting social justice programs run by churches. Religion has shown a great power to ease the suffering of less fortunate individuals, and by all means, such programs should be backed. However, under President Bush, these programs have not been used to aid the poor, they have been used as spoils handed over to his cronies. As shown by his numerous tax cuts for the rich and funding cuts for the poor, our President could care less about our nation's poor. How's that for following the teachings of Jesus? The Democratic Party has historically been far more connected with social welfare programs that help the needy in our society. A President Obama would simply take the power of the churches and use it for its intended purpose-aiding the needy.

On Obama's recent renunciation of public financing, what politician can be expected to give up the vast fundraising power he has managed to build? I do not applaud his decision to renounce his previous pledges but I can certainly see why he did so. Also consider Obama's efforts to raise money from millions of small donors instead of the usual tactics of complete reliance on corporate interests. Of course, Obama still raises large amounts of money from corporate interests, but he has also raised more money from grass-roots organizations than any candidate in history. MoveOn.org, a major Democratic PAC, has moved to get more money from small donors. It has closed its 527 group, which is subject to less regulations regarding contributions. Also noteworthy is the massive RNC warchest that is not officially part of McCain's campaign. The Obama campaign recently calculated that it is still behind McCain in funds due to the massive RNC cash reserves.

On foreign policy, of course Obama supports certain Bush policies - because they have worked. For some reason, the author implies that opposing the Bush administration means opposing all of its actions. Obama has said over and over that the campaign in Afghanistan is where our resources should be focused, instead of in Iraq. The North Korea talks are something that no sane politician could possibly oppose, and diplomacy has always been part of the Obama platform. Remember that Obama was the one to pledge to talk to hostile leaders. Note that the talks with North Korea came after years of the failed Bush policy of threats and nonnegotiation. It was only smart work on the part of the State Department and Secretary Rice that North Korea was brought back to the negotiating table. Only this time, Kim Jong-Il had more powerful cards to play as failed Bush policy had enabled him to develop nuclear weapons. Expanding the military is likewise an important nonpartisan issue that is even more necessary given the Bush admistration's overstretching of the military. Cuba? Same deal. Why should a politician be compelled to keep his positions the same, even if he sincerely changes his positions? The embargo position switch can't possibly gain him much of an electoral edge, it's such a sideline issue that Obama can't very well use it to leverage votes.

Obama's characterization of Iran as a "grave threat" is due to, you guessed it, the Bush administration's mishandling of the situation. Bush's failed policy of not talking to hostile countries has given Iran to step up its own nuclear program. Back in 2002, when Iran was added to the Axis of Evil, it was in fact a valuable ally in the fight against the Taliban (see post: Iranian Revolutionary Guard for more on Iran). If we hadn't started the demagoguing then, Iran might now be a stabilizing force in the region, not a potential enemy.

Finally, the right's characterization of the Iraq issue has created a Catch-22 for Obama. First, McCain criticized Obama for not going to Iraq and speaking with the generals on the ground. But when he does exactly that, the Republicans criticize him for completely reversing his position. Since when does a carefully planned withdrawal based on the recommendations of military professionals mean the opposite of a carefully planned withdrawal based on a timetable? I'd like the McCain camp to come up with a similarly careful plan of action in Iraq. The Republican plan to hand over authority to the Iraqis is clearly not working as planned, due to serious flaws and delays in the execution. Without the goal of withdrawal, a secure handover to the Iraqis is not going to happen either.

Now I certainly see merit in criticism that says Obama has repudiated his pledge to change politics as we know it. But what's wrong with having a president that pays attention to what the people want? What's wrong with having a president that moves to the center because that's where the public is? Isn't that what the president is supposed to do, carry out the will of the people?