I suspect that Obama's staff commissioned a poll asking two questions: Would you vote for a Democrat or a Republican for President? and Would you vote for Barack Obama for President? And the Democrat defeated Obama.

So Obama's advisors told him to run as the Democrat. Nothing different about him. In fact, given that Al Gore and John Kerry arguably lost their races because of their personalities, he's better off having no personality at all. No controversial positions, no expertise, no delirious crowds, no assumption of being the inevitable winner.

Calvin Coolidge may have won by being silent. But these days a candidate has many people attempting to supply an image of him which will make the public more or less likely to vote for him. And which will give the public expectations about the policies a candidate will pursue in order to restrict his choices after his election.

By making himself a generic Democrat, Obama is allowing others to create a Barack Obama to suit other purposes.

But worse, he's giving the iompression that there's no such thing as a Barack Obama. That he was in fact saying what people wanted to hear, and giving people the impression they asked of a candidate. All covered by an arrogant, ingratiating charm which now tells everyone that whatever they think of him, they're wrong. And whatever they want, they will receive it only if he deems responding permissible according to his attitudes and useful to him. Pure exploitive ambition.

Perhaps many people have come to doubt they know who Barack Obama is, except inherently unfriendly. Perhaps his supporters remain those who know all they want about him just by looking at him.

Telling John McCain to behave naturally in response must be the easiest political advice in decades. And his impression of being genuine, if restless and sometimes confused, makes him an emblem of how many people feel. Obama gave up far more to consolidate and slightly expand his base than McCain ever had to do.

Personality" that had made him a celebrity in the first place.

Could you guys make up your mind?

McCain's almost daily flip-flops.

A week ago Sunday he was for deregulation.

Monday night he was for it.

Sunday morning he was against it again.

Philidor:

Just trying to keep up with Mr. Obama's changes of mind.

And by that you mean that you're keeping up with the talking points that Hannity sent you today, right?

Hannity issues talking points for Slate posters?

I'm impressed.

I've never heard Mr. Hannity, and I consider Mr. Limbaugh a talented comedian.

Limbaugh has talent? I have yet to see any evidence of that, except in persuading his radio station to pay him.

How about some detail about Obama changing positions? The only one I know about is his willingness to compromise on drilling offshore for oil (which McCain also changed his mind on). Has McCain settled on the economy yet? Is it fundamentally strong or what?

'How about some detail about Obama changing positions?'

when he tells his union buds that he hates NAFTA and then goes and tells the canucks that he just using the poor suckers.

how he will only take gubmint money than takes big bucks from fannie and freddie.

when he said that he will raise taxes on the ones making 250k or more to 'help' the economy and then says he will delay that tax increase if the economy sucks.

obama talks out of both sides of his big lips goes around saying one thing in scranton and another in san fran as the palin babe observed.

'The only one I know about is his willingness to compromise on drilling offshore for oil (which McCain also changed his mind on). Has McCain settled on the economy yet? Is it fundamentally strong or what?'

it's fundamentally strong but johnnie realized that the dipshits asking the questions were fundamentally strong enough to understand it so he said fuck it. those airheads in the press are not exactly what you would call nuanced.

Ok. I'll answer for the sake of anyone else reading, but I have no hope of getting any real facts through your thick head.

1. Your characterization of his position on Nafta is nowhere near what he has said. He has, in fact, talked about renegotiating some parts of Nafta having to do with pollution and wages. What would make you think that Canada has weak pollution controls or that Canadians make less than we do. The renegotiation would be with Mexico...duh.

2. BIg bucks from Fannie or Freddie? In fact you are talking about people who work for Freddie and they can legally contribute up to $2,400 bucks each. McCain actually raised more money from lobbyists and members of the board of directors. It comes out to something like $120k vs $160k when you include those people. So what has McCain done for his $160k?

3. What about Obama's SF speech is so bad? He was talking about rust belt Pennsylvania. I know that area pretty well. The fact is that the people who live there do feel betrayed by the government and the companies and industries that they used to rely on. They do fall back on religion as a comfort, since their communities are decimated by the loss of the mills and mines that used to be there. They do think that the 2nd amendment is vital to their being able to defend themselves against the government.

The economy is fundamentally strong? That is what Phil Gramm and Carly Fioriana are telling him. Phil Gramm who became a millionaire while a member of Congress and Carly who laid off 35,000 employees of HP and got laid off with a goodbye kiss of $47 million. Are you kidding?

Philidor:

Hannity issues talking points for Slate posters?

Of course he does. They're pasted daily by loyal republican lemmings such as yourself.

Philidor:

I've never heard Mr. Hannity, and I consider Mr. Limbaugh a talented comedian.

Now I know you're lying.

patron002:

Nick_Danger, Personality wins in the party election, loses in the national election.

Kind of hard to believe, considering that neither of the last two losers of the national election had any personality.

Any candidate is likely to modify his positions to attract voters. Obama has changed his initial views so much that left-wing supporters prepared a petition asking him to be more consistent.

But my original post considered the reason for Obama's change in approach. Here are quotes from the article which to me make a valid point:

Obama has responded to McCain's new pitch with a torrent of sarcasm. In doing so, he sounds a lot like his opponent. So while McCain tries to adopt Obama's message (even using the same phrases), Obama is trying out some McCain attitude—and this presidential campaign is beginning to sound very familiar.

Whether or not Obama's sarcasm is successful, his reliance on it is just another indication of how this once-promisingly unconventional campaign has become thoroughly conventional. Once upon a time, both McCain and Obama were seen as nontraditional candidates. McCain was going to give straight talk, and Obama was going to stamp out cynicism. ... That's all gone now. We're back to the familiar.

Obama, meanwhile, has never really offered a robust new policy paradigm to match his post-partisan politics, which was the early promise of his campaign. Since last month he has placed even greater emphasis on what his economic policies could do for voters, but his policies sound ever more standard.

[End quotes]

Starting from the premise that the Obama seen now is not the Obama seen previously, the question I attempted to answer is Why(?).

middleview:

Limbaugh has talent? I have yet to see any evidence of that, except in persuading his radio station to pay him.

How about some detail about Obama changing positions? The only one I know about is his willingness to compromise on drilling offshore for oil (which McCain also changed his mind on). Has McCain settled on the economy yet? Is it fundamentally strong or what?

Obama advocates for killing babies who are born after a late term abortion and then claims he does not support killing babies born alive. Worse he lies in his ad accusing McCain of calling him on his alleged support of infanticide when he didn't!