I thought I had Barack Obama figured out. I thought he was no more liberal than Hillary Clinton but far more likely to bridge the divides in this nation. But, if that’s what I am seeing, why are America’s leftists seeing something entirely different? A day after Obama gets the MoveOn.org arch-liberal seal of approval, there’s this Christopher Hayes piece in The Nation, encouraging the left to rally behind Obama.
As a moderate independent, some of these endorsements bother me, too — more so the MoveOn support than The Nation. Certainly seeing the hard-left swing-in behind a candidate I like gives me pause, in exactly the same way support for a Republican from the hard-right would. (Given the hysteria in the right blogosphere about McCain, though, this seems unlikely to become a problem.)
With the Democratic nomination race down to two candidates, people and organizations affiliated with that party have to either ride one of the remaining horses, or remain in the stands. But if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination for the Democrats, many — perhaps most — of the support behind Obama will shift to her, regardless of where they’re declaring their loyalties now. That’s what partisan politics is all about, after all. Brethren together and all that…
Still — I understand his concern, and although I already wrote my assessment of Obama and the hard-left, these endorsements are not going to serve him well in the general election if he gets there.
More people than Alan Stewart Carl are going to judge him by the company he keeps.
Added: From Steve Benen’s Carpetbagger Report, writing about whether the ‘Obamacans’ are real:
I’d just add one thing, though. I’ve heard some Obama detractors on the left argue, “See? He’s drawing support from the right? Therefore, he must be bad and Dems shouldn’t nominate him.”
This axe swings both ways, folks.