Has Barack Obama "changed" into George W. Bush light? or The "change" that keeps on changing.

There have been a number of articles in the national media about the breathtaking "change" in Senator Obama's stances on many key issues since winning the Democratic Party's nomination. The changes have been so dramatic that Democrats must now ask: Has Barack Obama "changed" into George W. Bush light?

The bastion of liberal ideals and thinking, the editorial board of the New York Times, questions the bona fides of Obama as an agent of "change" and a different politician. In their July 4th editorial "New and Not Improved" they state, "Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt."

The NY Times editorial board points out, "The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11."

"The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation." says the Times.

In this amazing statement the Times shows its outrage, "On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control."

Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law and criticized the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder referring to the Louisiana law requiring the death penalty for child rape.

Senator Obama wants to expand healthcare much as President Bush expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

Obama also said "mental distress" should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.

Finally, and perhaps the straw that will break the liberal lefts back, is Senator Obama's weakening if not complete shift on withdrawing from Iraq. As Tim Shipman of the UK Telegraph points out, "Mr Obama first emerged as a viable candidate through his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war. He has pledged to bring the troops home within 16 months, but on Thursday he vowed to "refine" his position after discussing the situation with commanders on the ground."

So, except for taxes and Supreme Court justices Barack Obama is George W. Bush light. As the Wall Street Journal said jokingly in an editorial that Mr Obama – not John McCain, the Republican candidate – is the one running for Bush's "third term". But is it really a joke?

Is Barack Obama a new politician? Or is he following the mold of previous Democratic candidates: run hard left in the primaries and run hard right in the general because that is where the country is. Is Obama just pandering for votes and money or is he really an agent of "change". Is Obama someone you can trust because he stands on principle or does he throw principle under the bus to get elected?

Arianna Huffington, the doyenne of liberal bloggers, immediately pronounced his move to the middle to be "Realstupidpolitik" and wrote: "Moving to the middle is for losers."

Is Barack Obama a loser? Or is he the "change" that keeps on changing?

UPDATE: This is from our fellow blogger Greg Pierce at Inside Politics, July 10, 2008

"The list of issues on which Barack Obama has flipped now that the primaries are over is long and growing rapidly," Dick Morris writes in the Hill newspaper.

• "He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• "He now opposes late-term abortion.
• "He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• "He now says that he won't raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he'd eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• "He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• "Now he says he's going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

"But so extensive a list of flip-flops, all in the past few weeks, begs the basic question: Was he lying before when he was a liberal, or is he prevaricating now?" Mr. Morris said. "Even if Obama means what he is saying as he moves to the center trying to win the general election, the fact is that he will be forced to move very far to the left should he become president, forced by the liberals in his own party. …