Run down his position on the issues, or look at his rating from National Journal, and there's not much doubt that Barack Obama is one of the most liberal candidates ever to contend for his party's presidential nomination. Listen to him speak, and he's a pragmatist uninterested in partisan dogma, and committed to working with any Republican or Democrat to move America forward. Which is the real Obama? The Democratic worries:
Obama sends out regular signals that he will govern in a very centrist fashion. Running Harry and Louise ads and appointing Bush Dog Jim Cooper as a spokesperson on health care make that obvious enough. His praise of Reagan and bragging that he is more bipartisan than the DLC also make that clear. He has no problem letting you know that he's "not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil," that he isn't a "anti-military, 70s love-in." He scolds unknown progressives for thinking that "every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy," and reminded everyone that Social Security faces a crisis. Now, he is sending out signals that will be appoint Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar to incredibly powerful posts such as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Here is the thing: what counter-indications had Obama given that he will govern as a progressive? I honestly can't think of any.
Obama will have to be slicker than Bill Clinton to avoid choosing sides, and giving a clear indication as to what he believes in. Eventually though, he will cease to be the human rorschach test onto whom voters project their vision of a post-partisan leader. Eventually, either liberals or moderates will learn that Barack Obama was only pretending to be one of them.