Barack Obama hasn't shifted; our perceptions have

The MSM and others are freaking out over how Barack Obama is shifting to the center. But like those who blasted Galileo many centuries ago for his correct stance on heliocentrism (yes, the Sun is the center of the solar system), the perspective of the MSM (and others) is the one that has been skewered. Obama hasn't gone anywhere.

John McCain is the one flying all over the place, contradicting himself considerably from his presidential run of 2000. Yet all the attention has been on where Obama has "drifted."

I've been impressed that Obama is relatively shift-free (no politician is truly shift-free), more so than many others who have run for president. But many have put their own perspective on what Obama stands for without actually paying attention to what Obama has said.

This may come as a bulletin, but you should know this: Barack Obama is not a liberal. Bill Clinton is not a liberal. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal.

If you haven't fainted yet, and you are still reading, if you wanted a liberal in office, you probably should have voted for Dennis Kucinich. And even then, there are plenty of people to the left of Kucinich.

For years, the MSM has defined "liberals" as anything to the left of whatever conservative is pontificating at the moment. In Newt Gingrich's world, 96% of the world is "liberal" because they are to the left of his philosophy.

It's bad enough that liberals, or progressives, or whatever word you use is usually defined by political enemies. But liberals or progressives also get caught up in labels, and pigeonhole those who are on our side.

Conservatives are doing the same thing to McCain. There is a considerable amount of the conservative base who will not vote for McCain because they think he is too liberal. The guy from Seattle I met on vacation asked me what I thought about Bob Barr. I thought he was being theoretical, but this guy was serious about Barr. I told him Barr was worth about 3% in Georgia, but not much more. This Barr supporter won't be marking McCain in any circumstance.

We blast politicians when they suck up to the base, such as McCain. So when Obama shows us what he is all about, we blast him because he isn't sucking up to the base.

Regardless of which side you are on, Obama has shown more of who he is than McCain. Even the speculation over who McCain will pick for a running mate comes down to whether the McCain of 2000 will make the pick or the 2008 McCain version will do so.

Liberals or progressives have not done a good job at presenting what it means to be who you are. Ask a conservative what makes a conservative and they'll rattle on about lower taxes, less government intrusion, and less restriction on business. But at least they have a list.

We generally agree that liberals or progressives have more ideas, better ideas about how to improve the lives of citizens, but we don't do a good job at presenting them.

The great example is liberals and FISA vs. conservatives and the D.C. handgun ban. Conservatives have argued that the Second Amendment needs to be protected, and so the D.C. handgun ban has to be lifted. You may disagree with that interpretation, but it's a good way to portray an argument.

But you don't hear liberals portraying the FISA bill as a threat to the Fourth Amendment. We don't hear how the Fourth Amendment needs to be protected. And here's the irony: conservatives, true conservatives want to protect the Fourth Amendment as much as liberals, perhaps even more. Yet the argument isn't presented this way.

It's not liberal or conservative to protect the Fourth Amendment; it's a move that should be without labels. Unfortunately, Obama is on the wrong side of the FISA issue, which is sad because Obama could sell the wisdom of saving the Fourth Amendment as being label-free. And Obama has been campaigning on a philosophy to get past labels, likely in part because Obama himself is a candidate without labels.

But like those who attacked Galileo, they will learn in time that labels diminish and candidates should be judged on who they are, not what we perceive them to be.