This "shifting to the center" meme is a right-wing smear to define BO as a flip-flopper.  Barack Obama has always held these positions.  Check the records; Read Audacity of Hope; Please check your issues.  BO did not shift to the center as many right-wing pundits are claiming. The followings are positions that BO has held for as long as we've known him:

On NAFTA - No change, BO is and has been a free-trader all along but wanted trade-deals with labor standards to protect American workers.

On Guns - BO has always supported the right to bear arm as contained in 2nd Amendment (that's why he won Idaho, Colorado, etc. in the primary)

On Abortion - his current position has always been his position (that's why they EMILY's list attacked him in New Hampshire).

On Death Penalty - Go and check BO's Illinois record, where he led the reform there not to ban death penalty but to ensure a transparent and judicious death penalty system.

On Faith Based initiatives - Read Audacity of Hope.  This has been BO's position all along.

On Iraq -  BO has always had this "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline in consultation with Commanders on the ground.

So in conclusion, I give it to the Republican for having succeeded in fooling the Democrats and the Press to embrace their talking point.   They wanted to define BO as a flip-flopper the way they did against John Kerry.  Ask yourself, why were the Press and McCain campaign so fast to twist BO's reiteration of his Iraq position?  And this is the same position he's held since the first day he came up with "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline.  Same position from September of 2007

So wake up folks; read your copy of Audacity of Hope; check BO's records to see that he's a pragmatic left-of-the-center democrat.

A late term abortion without justification is murder.
Unless the mother's life or physical health is in danger, the baby should be allowed to live and his/her life should be protected by law. The little baby has a right to live like each one of us.  Mental distress; we all have that at work from time to time.
It should not be reason enough to kill a baby.  Do you cut off one of your arms whenever you're mentally distressed from work or family?

No defenseless baby deserves to die for the Mom's temporal mental distress.

Did anyone review McCain's latest Economic plan and its fantasies including how he plans to balance the budget in four years using "Victory gains" from deficit financing of Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

Go to show you that McCain has no clue when it comes to economics.

SusanG at Kos said it best:  
"just because I stop charging on my credit card doesn't mean I'm suddenly making income to pay off the debt I've run up, does it?"

So the next time John McCain admits that he knows nothing about economics, better believe him.

U.S. Military is now poised for a 2 weeks surgical strikes inside Iran.  The American public and the Obama campaign better be ready because with the pending bill on Iranian Naval Blockade in the congress, engagement is now inevitable.  And it'll occur at the earliest September 5 and no later than October 13, 2008.  The confrontation will last for 2 weeks in which the US will completely destroy Iranian nuclear capability and also disable the overall Iranian military establishment to the point that they couldn't pose a reasonable threat to little Jordan or Kuwait.
*    Here are my reasons for predicting that military confrontation is by now inevitable:
*    GW Bush will use his military capital to fight a war that would be swift and victorious; thus redeeming his image from the Iraqi debacle.
*    Iran as an Islamic Republic will not cower to the blockade and thus would resist.
*    The Iranian government sees resisting US as a service to Allah and thus a religious obligation.  They'll even fire the first shot, if US tries to impose the Congress-authorized blockade; therefore predicating the 2 weeks bombardment.

Now, let's move and make some more prediction before giving Obama some advice (I'm a pragmatic Obamacan and for the records, I like Gen. Clark and also believe that flying a plane does not qualify one to be president).  So here are my money predictions:
*    First oil will spike after the initial confrontation but will plummet below $100 after the US Navy has secured the Strait of Hormuz.
*    The action will resemble the bombardment of Belgrade but will not involve any major ground troop deployment inside Iran.
*    The whole Arab World will condemn the military action but nothing further than that.

Now, what is my advice to Obama campaign on this?  Be ready and know that it's coming and also get your talking points ready since you've moved to the center now.  
What are Obama's options on this inevitable bombardment of Iran?
*    Get his General together and start condemning Iran's nuclear pursuit in the strongest terms.  So long as he is unequivocal in his condemnation, he does not need to support or oppose military actions against Iran; he should keep his mouth shut and just keep condemning Iranian nuclear pursuit.
*    Declare that if this is the last resort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, then so be it.
*    Recommend that the action be swift and quick with no ground troop deployment or military occupation.

Update: Here is the Bill below: H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."

The Politico had this story on how Obama was on the wrong side of the Elian Gonzalez saga.  They detailed how this singular issue could impact the outcome of Florida in November. Here is the link to the story:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 8/11295.html

Here is my suggested solution:

Obama should arrange a high-powered press conference denouncing the repatriation of Elian Gonzalez on humanitarian ground.

On humanitarian ground, I believe that the wishes of the boy's mother who died in pursuit of a better life for her son carried more weight than the silly argument of the DOJ then.

Obama should publicly state that the position of Craig and Holder in his campaign has no relationship to their positions or actions in that unfortunate episode.

How do you think Obama should handle this?  

Hillary Clinton killed the dream ticket idea with her Argus-gaffe.

No reasonable member of the Obama family would want a person that is hopefully waiting to benefit from an attempt of BO's life to be his VP.  Any good insurance company would see fraud/criminal intent writen all over such ticket.

The last time I discussed the democratic ticket for November, I talked in growing terms about an Obama/Sebelius Ticket:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/10/1436 14/697
My admiration for that ticket is still as strong as ever; however, I just read an article about how major Obama supporters are purveying the possibility of giving the VP ticket to a Clinton supporter for the interest of unity.  The names being thrown out there include Ted Strickland, Evan Byah, and General Clark: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/10/1436 14/697
I will admit that of the three, I'm very convinced that General Clark would get it...
I've been a supporter of General Clark since his days as the NATO supremo; I also believe that he's so qualified to be the President of this nation.  I only started supporting Obama when I realized that the Clintons would not allow the General to run.  So if it's Clark, I'll be getting two for one actually.

There has been a lot said by people from both side of this contest about electability and the need to nominate the candidate that will win in November.  Please watch the video below to see why I believe that BO is in a better position to win in November - Obamacans

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/05/12/1009665.aspx