As Obama continues tacking to the center, the netroots are adjusting their metaphorical collars with increasing nervousness. He agreed with the Supreme Court in their overturning of the D.C. gun ban, but disagreed with them in disallowing states to execute child rapists. He started to walk back on his primary statements on re-negotiating NAFTA, and hinted that his view on Iraq was evolving.

But no other issue has so enraged the left wing online noise machine than the FISA compromise, which, among other things, gave telecom companies retroactive immunity from prosecution for turning over phone records to the government. TPM posted a handy timeline laying out Obama’s previous statements on telecom immunity — he was against it. So yes, this seems to qualify as yet another “flip flop.”

I have yet to see a cogent argument for why telecom companies should be prosecuted in the first place. If you want to prosecute members of the Bush administration, or even Bush himself, that’s one thing. But weren’t the telecom companies just following orders? I don’t know about Glen Greenwald, but when the government tells me to do something, I do it — not because I’m patriotic, but because I’m scared.

The FISA bill is far from perfect, and personally, I would prefer no warrant-less wiretapping at all. But that’s what happens when you have a divided government.

The sad part is that warrant-less wiretapping doesn’t rank anywhere near the top of the list of the worst things the Bush administration is responsible for. Compared to torturing prisoners, detaining people indefinitely, denying them habeas rights, launching a tragically irrational war, ballooning the deficit, giving the rich tax cuts…If you had to choose between the CIA listening to you argue with your girlfriend and being water-boarded, I think it’d be a pretty easy decision to make.

If Obama veered right on certain issues, however, I’d be upset: health care, closing Guantanamo, his tax plan, and perhaps his views on diplomacy.

The other argument against Obama’s pivoting is that it’s bad politics. Arianna Huffington argues that Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they tacked to the center, which made them look weak. And Chris Bowers wrotethat Obama stands to gain more votes from Democrats than Independents.

On the other hand, the only Democrat to actually become president in the last 28 years was Bill Clinton, who practically reinvented tacking to the center by campaigning for welfare reform and being tough on crime. Bowers’ argument in particular sounds a bit like the Karl Rove strategy, which I guess worked out well for Bush but not so much for the rest of the country. And isn’t it possible to stake out positions that appeal to both Democrats and Independents? Might Obama campaign on a set of principles that stand in firm contrast to Bush and McCain, but don’t quite jibe with the Daily Kos?

The Republicans were planning on defining Obama as an ultra-lefty, “the most liberal senator,” according to the National Journal. Of course this label was a bit silly, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try to disprove it. But more important than the liberal/non-liberal distinction is the one between idealist and realist. Obama falls squarely in the realist camp. As David Brooks wrote, way back in 2007, “He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways.”

Obama would seem to have taken that argument away from Republicans in the last week. Whether or not that makes him more or less electable remains to be seen. But the fact that Obama is not beholden to the netroots strikes me as good thing. After all, they’re a special interest group too.

–Hillel Aron

Photo by mirsasha