'To the right, to the right,' Obama ditching progressives?

Salim Muwakkil has a thought-provoking article on alternet.com that suggests Barack Obama is being molded into a traditional "centrist" politician by his handlers and advisers:

Somehow, though, the magic has gone missing. The cut-and-parse, political calibrations employed by Obama's campaign staff have devalued enchantment and put a premium on marketing. His political masterminds have transformed Obama from a political visionary into an electoral product (with demographically designed components) just like every other presidential aspirant. His handlers have excised the very quality that distinguished Obama from the usual suspects... [Paul] Street has been a consistent critic of the Obama phenomenon, but many of us who know the candidate begged to differ. We argued he was a true progressive who would use his extraordinary time in the limelight to speak unpopular truths about U.S. foreign and domestic policy while unflinchingly reminding the nation of its racial obligations.That prospect was the magic ingredient in Obama mania. His strategists are busy squandering it.

-- The Squandering of Obama

Thomas Edsall of the Huffington Post suggests Obama's recent pronunciations suggesting an interventionist approach with U.S. ally Pakistan might represent Obama's "Sister Souljah moment." The reference is to Bill Clinton's break with the progressive base of the party toward the "center" when he confronted Jesse Jackson during the 1992 campaign.

According to Edsall, Chris Bowers and others, Obama has gradually adopted stands that represent a shift to the right from his perceived positions. For example, his statements in May on race-based affirmative action, which seem starkly at odds with what he has said and written about in the past.

Obama's speech and his recent foreign policy article, where he says he might attack North Korea or Iran to stop WMD efforts (sound familiar?) got me thinking about accusations that he supported Israel's misbegotten invasion of Lebanon.

The actual evidence doesn't point to his "support" of the invasion, but at the same time he failed to oppose the war in the same way he opposed the Iraq War.

If Obama is indeed moving to right under the guidance of his advisers, or on his own initiative, it might be a poll-driven shift. Maybe one of the things about George W. Bush worth admiring is his tendency not take commercial opinion polls too seriously.

I'm reminded of what I would call a Kerry moment, when John Kerry, under the advice of John Edwards, decided to take a hawkish stance on Iraq in his contest with W.

Democrats just can't match up with the Republicans when they frame the debate in terms of hawkish issues. Maybe it won't matter that much this time around as the Republicans are in such disarray, but why take the chance?

Of course, Obama's stand on foreign policy issues will continue to become clearer as we near the election. And if it happens that he as hawkish as some suggest, to whom do those who believe in another way flee?

And how likely is Obama to beat Hillary on her own turf?