to be useful or even answerable as asked.  You need to sharpen the question significantly.  Try stating some examples of what would be "moving to the center" on a particular issue.  Also be sure to distinguish rhetoric from actual language in proposed legislation.

On most issues Obama would have to go awfully far right to pass McCain. But if Obama went further right than McCain on one or more civil liberties issues I would have to begin considering McCain.

The Surge has succeeded, but not at what we set out to do.  Politically it has been pretty much a flop.

However, I'm not sure its wise to ignore what it has accomplished.  The grown-ups are running the DoD now (thank God they convinced Gates to take the job, he didn't want to leave A&M), there's an outside chance we can leave Iraq in some semblance of a coherent state.

I'm not saying I think that's more likely than not.  However, it is possible now and it wasn't before.

Strategy is not the same thing as tactics.  If strategically we are bailing out, but tactically we are trying to do right by the Iraqis, well that's wondeful.

Read up on how Palestine turned out after the British left in a hurry.

about Obama drifting too much to the right, that's when you should sound the alarm.  I would stay away from anymore "rightward" "shifts," "revelations," or whatever you want to call them; he's done enough in terms of articulating "centrist" positions to the American public.  His aim should have always been to become "stylistically" moderate/conservative (e.g. Hillary standing on a pickup truck, using the word "obliterate," downing shots), rather than "substantively" moderate/conservative.

goes an inch out from his promise on Iraq. He will lose me. I don't want to hear any word from you 'Obama had this speech on Iraq in 2002 and hillary  blah blah blah ' voters.

Time to put up or __  on this issue.  

During the campaign, there is virtually nothing short of becoming a Republican he could do to lose my vote.  He could lose my active support with a dramatic rightward shift on foreign policy (particularly Iraq), health care or education policy, civil rights, or some sick personal scandal, but that's all very, very unlikely.  And even if he did, I wouldn't vote for McCain - I'd just stay home.

Once he's president, I'll oppose him every time he does something that's significantly out of step with what I believe.

Short of joining the republican party Obama will be to the left of McCain on just about every issue.  If he and McCain agreed on every single issue but one, and on that one he was to the left of McCain he would have my vote.

Why?

Because at this point I want the president that is more closely aligned with my beliefs, or less contrary to my beliefs.  Either way you look at it, Obama fits that bill.  I didn't agree with Kerry on many things, yet I voted for him.  I don't agree with what I consider some triangulating by Obama, but I'll vote for him, because he's better than the other guy.

Posts like this don't help.  Because they work against electing the Democratic nominee by establishing some "tipping point."

I'm not particularly bothered by anything Obama has said or done lately.  I'm not a fan of his recent support of the death penalty, but I realize it's politically smart and I've no reason to believe he hasn't always held that position.  And, since it was a SC decision, I've also no reason to believe he can really change that decision, barring making the death penalty some sort of SC litmus test.

I'm bothered by FISA, but not so much because of Obama but because Congressional Democrats didn't have the guts to stick to their guns on no immunity.  

I'm not bothered in the least by his abortion stance, and I think the whole Iraq fuss is much ado about nothing, given his statements during the primaries and the fact that common sense dictates that a Presidential candidate can't make military decisions without consulting with the JCoS.

There's a lot Obama is doing that is not exactly how I would handle it. Nonetheless, so long as he is significantly left of McCain, I'll support him and (which means more than just my vote) and not do anything to undermine him (which means damage the enthusiasm he needs for success).

I'm not sure that there has been a "move to the center," other than perhaps on FISA.  For example, he has supported faith-based initiatives for quite some time.  That he did not always talk about some issues, or previously talked about them in a different way, does not qualify as a "move," in my opinion.  This is almost a completely Republican- and media-manufactured controversy.

The most left leaning candidate will get my vote.

I'm sure he'll piss me off alot of times now (in the G.E. campaign) and when he's sworn into office as well. As long as he has the support of the Democratic party he has my vote.

Stop perverting his position.  His timelines for bringing the troops home has always been contingent on what the generals would say is possible.  There is NO firm date.  It wouldn't be a change in position if he is unable to make his goal of 16 months.

Do a little research before you start spouting off about a candidates positions with which you know nothing about.

become pro-life or tell us we musn't "change the course" in Iraq "because it will embolden the terrorists." Short of that, he gets my money, advocacy, and vote.

However, if doesn't end the war during his first term, I will pray for a primary challenger in 2012 and work for him/her.

I'm not even close to considering a 'tipping point'.  At this point he's remained fairly consistent in his views & opinions.  

I fully expect him to bring our combat troops out of Iraq within the first 16 months - or so.  But I do expect that, unlike Bush, he'll gather data first and devise a withdrawal that doesn't create absolute catastrophe in the region.  Note that this is very different from McCain's desire to keep our troops there until some ineffable "victory" is achieved.

While I personally do not approve of the death penalty under any circumstances, I appreciate that Obama disagreed with the SCOTUS ruling that, as it turned out, was based on inaccurate, or incomplete data:

It turns out that Justice Kennedy's confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.

I think Obama will be out of Iraq in two years, and am genuinely curious about whether those who would consider this a betrayal have been giving the situation there any scrutiny.  Think those who won't acknowledge that the past year has seen important changes (ie. a reduction in violence and some restoration of civil order) are being tragically wrong-headed, because the challenge we'll face isn't simply leaving but doing so on terms which won't require the US, at some later point, to go back (and the best way to do that, clearly, would be to leave an Iraq which had a stable government, most Iraqis don't want a US presence which lasts for decades).  I write this, btw, as someone who didn't think last year that these changes would occur, but they clearly have.

So I'll tweak the question a bit.  What is the crucial bit of information which someone must have in order to discuss Iraq intelligently?  Knowledge of the fact that Iraq is scheduled to have its own national elections at the end of next year, this will probably be the crucial round, because it will determine whether Maliki stays in power, the role Sadr and other Shi'ite factions would have in a post-US Iraq, the extent to which Sunnis will share power, the role of the Kurds, etc.  These are scheduled to occur in December, 2009.

And because of this, the calender for a sensible withdrawal writes itself.  The US should spend all of 2009 doing what it can to ensure that these elections go well.  Every short-term goal should be subordinated to this.  Then the US should probably leave whatever the circumstances (but the exact terms, ie. what its force structure in the Middle East should be, will depend entirely upon whether there is a new government in place which has the ability to exercise the minimum functions of sovereignty).

If the US doesn't do this, eg. spends all of 2009 withdrawing its forces, the result, almost certainly, will be one of a few bad outcomes.  Eg., Maliki will simply cancel the election (because it's not at all clear he's going to survive); Iran will attempt to skew the election in their favor through sock puppetry;  the various factions which have an interest in civil war will pick a fight (this could be Shi'ite on Sunni, Sunni on Kurd, there are numerous possibilities), which, again, could lead to the cancellation of this election.

Do progressives really have this sort of worry: "What after he visits Iraq he calls the surge a success in any measure."  Because if they do, well, I don't share it, and in practical terms think they're on the cusp of supporting something which would be both foolish and morally reprehensible.  The Iraqi public has suffered enough.  I don't think the Dems should stick their heads in the sand so they can deny the Republicans some ability to claim a moral victory (which they're going to do anyway, if Iraq goes up in flames a year from now the architects of this strategy will claim that the Dems simply blew it).

Does Obama understand the different variables in play?  From what I can see, he seems to.  He hasn't left himself any wiggle room on the question of whether the US should withdraw completely.  For all of this talk about him "tacking to the center" on Iraq, all he's doing right now is saying that how the US withdraws matters (and good for him, he's right).

What's the tipping point for me on this issue?  If 2010 comes around the subject of withdrawal has fallen by the wayside.  Which, frankly, I'm not expecting, and if this occurred the Dems in Congress would probably bring the war to a screeching halt (I mean, c'mon, who thinks they wouldn't?).

Here's another big mistake I think some progressives are making: they don't have a keen understanding of the role which the executive branch and Congress, respectively, play in setting foreign policy.  A Republican president probably could do whatever he wanted (because the only remedy the Dems would have would be the draconian one, cut off all funding, and that wouldn't be a great outcome, because this approach, by its nature, makes any sort of intelligent endgame impossible).

Congressional Democrats would have a lot of influence on a Democratic president, though (and I'm assuming something which I don't believe is the case, btw, that a president Obama and a Democratic Congress would have fundamentally different goals, but c'mon, Obama could not veto a bill which cut off all funding in, say, six months, wouldn't ally with Republicans to launch a filibuster, etc., these are crazy scenarios).

My tipping point? If he were to go on stage and give George Bush a big hug and then call him the greatest president ever.

people stopped trying to start a revolt against our nominee, and focused on winning an election for once?

Why are you buying into  -- and further promoting -- the corporatist media/GOP meme?  McCain points?

Obama's positions now are entirely consistent with his positions in December of last year.  He's always been a centrist.  Do your own researtch on his stated positions -- not what the corporatist press said his positions were/are, but what he really said -- then and now and you'll see that this is true. The corporatist/GOP media first misrepresented him as a lefty so that now they can misrepresent him as a flip-flopper.