On the campaign trail this week, some sharp differences emerge (or reemerge) between candidates McCain and Obama.

Obama would require employers to expand family and medical leave, for example, while McCain said Thursday it should "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."

Negotiations between management and labor? What power do employees have to negotiate family leave rights? Does McCain assume that most employees belong to a union that can bargain collectively for them? This from the man who voted to block a Senate vote on the union-friendly Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that Obama co-sponsored.

On reproductive rights: [more ...]

Hillary Clinton's campaign today announced the winner of their t-shirt contest.

(larger version here.)

I like it. The graphic is so Hillary. Especially the tiny heels. Every time I got to see her in person she was wearing shoes with those tiny heels. Go on over and buy one. It will help her retire her debt.

At Barack Obama's Unity Fundraiser in New York last night, filled with Hillary supporters who were being asked to contribute to his campaign, Obama finished his speech but forgot one thing: to ask them to contribute to retiring her debt. He stopped the music and returned to the stage to do his part.

Video here.

Last night, on Countdown, Russ Feingold said we can fix it FISA if Barack Obama is elected President. Fine. Now here is what Obama can do now to help that happen.

Barack Obama can pledge, if he is elected President, to instruct his Administration to comply with FISA, as it existed prior to the passage of the Protect America Act and the most recent Amendment, passed yesterday. Barack Obama can pledge that in his Administration, the Executive Branch will comply with FISA (with the caveat that the one fix that was considered necessary, that telephone calls whose only nexus with the United States is the incidental passage of the communication through a United States based telecommunications node). Just because the Congress gutted FISA does not mean that an Obama Administration needs to act like the Bush Administration.

More . .

Democracy Corps:

It is important to note that this progress [for Obama] has been accompanied by some diminished enthusiasm and few gains among independent voters. . . . Obama’s campaign has only just begun to engage with the big issues before the country and to define the choice boldly in a way that engages voters, fully consolidates Democrats and wins over independents – though he clearly has the opportunity to do all three. . . . The Obama campaign clearly understands that it will have to be seen as leading the change in this change election.

. . . Not surprising is the drop in intense positives among liberals, liberal Democrats and white young voters, as we can see in the graph below. More worrisome is the broader drop in intense responses on key attributes –“on your side” (describes “very well” dropped from 27 to 21 percent), “strong leader” (dropped from 31 to 26 percent), and “will bring the right kind of change” (dropped from 28 to 24 percent). Overall, only 51 percent say Obama is “on your side” (down 4 points) and only 52 percent say he will “will bring the right kind of change” (unchanged). Obama seems to have lost some definition in this transition, and he has only just begun to articulate the change in ways that engage voters.

(Emphasis supplied.) [More...]

Dahlia Lithwick and Doug Kendall at Slate ask a good question:

Obama veers to the right, but did he have to take the Constitution with him?

They note:

It's not an overstatement to say that in the past month Obama has tugged the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth amendments to the center. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a constitutional wink to the right on guns (he thinks there is an individual right to own one), the wall of separation between church and state (he thinks it can be lowered), the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless wiretapping (he's changed his position on FISA), and on the death penalty for noncapital child rape cases (he thinks it's constitutional) as well as a possible shift this week on the right to abortion (which could further limit the reach of Roe v. Wade).

The point: [More...]

Maybe Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate after all.

Democrat Barack Obama and his former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, flew to New York on Wednesday along with his vice presidential searcher Caroline Kennedy.

The flight came on a day in which Obama touched off new speculation about his choice of a running mate by making an unannounced morning stop at the downtown building where another member of his vice presidential search team, Eric Holder, works.

..."I'm not going to tell you," the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters when asked who he met and what they discussed as he exited the office building that houses Holder's law firm some two hours and 20 minutes after entering. He had two top aides — campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod — at his side.

While I've never been one of those pushing a joint ticket, it seems to me now Hillary on the ticket would vastly improve Obama's chances in the general election. It certainly would get me more enthused about the election.

Matt Yglesias makes the argument all Obama fans should avoid:

I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently [on the FISA Capitulation bill].

The argument made against Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq Debacle was that he was not in the Senate and would have voted differently if he was. I always battled Clinton supporters on this claim. All we know is what he did do and he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle. It is ridiculous to argue about "swapped roles." Here, Clinton did the right thing and Obama did the wrong thing. On Iraq, Obama did the right thing and Clinton did the wrong thing. It is crazy for Obama fans to argue that Obama's changed his FISA Capitulation position because of the politcal race he is in (I say it, but I am no Obama fanboy). One could then argue that had Obama been in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted for the IWR. Why open that can of worms? I say give him credit for his good positions and rip him for his bad ones.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Sen. Barack Obama released a statement yesterday explaining why he's going to vote for the FISA bill. I'm sure Big Tent Democrat has previously addressed the substance of it.

Since I oppose all the FISA bills believing that FISA isn't broken and therefore needs no fixing, I've pretty much stayed out of it. What I find interesting about Obama's statement is this:

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

I'm still not convinced he will chart a new course, but I am convinced he will chart a better course than McCain. FISA is not a deal-breaker for me. [More...]

In Georgia today, Sen. Barack Obama today denied allegations he's moving to the middle, including on guns, the death penalty and Iraq.

"The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me"....

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

Obama then went on to explain his views on faith and government. [More...]

What Bowers Said:

According to Rasmussen, that CW is mirrored by the shifting perceptions of the general public, who view Obama as less liberal than they did one month ago. . . . So, now that Obama is perceived as moving to the center, while McCain is still perceived as conservative, Obama's poll numbers should improve, right? Wrong. According to the daily tracking poll from the same polling firm, Rasmussen, the campaign has not changed at all as a result of Obama being perceived as less liberal.

I will go one step further. Ras does not publish crosstabs, but I would bet dollars to donuts that most of the folks who now perceive Obama as "less liberal" are liberals themselves. It seems to me all Obama has accomplished with his "move to the middle" is anger the Dem base, created a "flip flopper" meme and changed the terms of the debate to one where the Dem position is the "Far Left" one. So Obama has ceded important ground on issues and gotten no help at all (indeed, it likely will hurt him in the longer run) politically. Hell of a move there Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

Via Progress Now, which captured the video, Carole Kreck, a 61 year librarian was waiting in line this morning at the Denver Center for Performing Arts to attend the John McCain town hall meeting. She held a sign that said "McCain = Bush."

McCain's security detail told her to leave. The police were called. They issued her a ticket for trespassing and escorted her out.

The event was open to the public. They advised people to arrive a few hours early. How can you trespass on public property if you've been invited to the event being held on that property?