Over the past two weeks, Barack Obama has said and done a number of things that pissed off progressives:

• Flip-flopped on immunity for warrantless wiretapping
• Criticized the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting capital punishment for child rape
• Praised the Supreme Court's decision overturning gun control laws
• Advocated responsible fatherhood on Father's Day
• Broadcast a TV ad embracing welfare "reform"
• Embraced "faith-based" programs

As a result, progressives like Digby are wondering: is Obama "triangulating" at our expense? Is he trying to win conservative votes by attacking progressives, as Bill Clinton famously did during the 1992 campaign when he attacked Sister Souljah?

I think not. When I analyze these actions more closely, I see a different pattern: Obama is trying to steal "moderate" conservative voters away from John McCain by emphasizing points of agreement without abandoning core progressive values. 

Who are these "moderate" conservatives? I could call them "compassionate" conservatives, which is a media-friendly term thanks to Bush's 2000 campaign, but I don't think it's an accurate description of the voters I'm talking about. Rather, I'm referring to people who call themselves conservatives, but have turned against George Bush and right-wing ranters like Rush Limbaugh because they have proven themselves wrong too many times to merit any more support.

At first glance, this seems like a hopeless strategy because John McCain is widely viewed as the quintessential "moderate" conservative because of his occasional defiance of hard-right positions on immigration, stem-cell research, global warming, torture, campaign finance reform, and tax cuts for the rich.

But the "maverick" McCain of 2000 is ancient history, and the "new" McCain is 1000% pro-Bush. And McCain's desperate embrace of Bush turns off "moderate" conservatives because of Bush's disastrous record on Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, gas prices, the economy, the budget deficit, and corruption.

So those voters are "in play" for Obama - but to win their votes, he has to overcome their kneejerk opposition to "liberal" Democrats.

There are several aspects of "liberalism" that produce a kneejerk conservative response. The simplest formulation is "God, gays, and guns" - hostility to Christianity, support for homosexuality, and hostility guns.

Interestingly, Obama is not trying to position himself as a conservative on these hot-button issues. Instead, he's trying to position himself as a moderate who embraces the positive aspects of these conservative issues, without embracing their divisive aspects.

So on faith-based programs (i.e. "God"), Obama embraced the effective social service work performed by religious groups, and promised government support for that work. But he rejected divisive aspects like using government funds for proselytizing and job discrimination.

On gays, Obama opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and opposes Constitutional amendments in states like California to block gay marraiges.

On guns, Obama embraced the individual right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment, but also embraced the right of local governments to enact reasonable restrictions on that right.

Bill Clinton pursued a similar strategy, both as a candidate and as President. But Clinton's appeals were mainly rhetorical, not substantive. For example, Clinton wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." "Safe and legal" appealed to pro-choice voters, while "rare" was meant to appeal to anti-choice voters. But it was just rhetoric; Clinton was solidly pro-choice in his appointments of Donna Shalala to HHS, Jocelyn Elders to Surgeon General, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Clinton's strong support for birth control and sex education actually did reduce abortions, from a rate of 1.5 million per year to about 1.2 million. But those reductions didn't placate anti-abortion leaders, it only made them angrier because it proved them stupid.

Clinton also infuriated conservatives on the very first day after he won the election, when he off-handedly said he would let gays serve in the military. That set off a right-wing firestorm that lasted throughout his Presidency, and even beyond.

Clinton did a better job with "God," speaking regularly in churches about faith issues. But once again, it was all rhetoric - not policy.

Obama is taking a different approach: advocating concrete policies that appeal to "moderate" conservatives.

It's an interesting strategy. On many of these issues, ordinary progressives really aren't that far from ordinary conservatives. The whole idea of "social services" comes out of quasi-religious works, in the form of Settlement Houses. Many progressives are involved in homeless shelters and soup kitchens that are operated by churches. So the idea of faith-based social services isn't alien to ordinary progressives.

On guns, ordinary progressives understand the desire of conservatives to own guns for hunting and protecting their homes. We don't want to take guns away from legitimate owners, we just want them to be sold, used, and stored responsibly.

So it's theoretically possible for Obama to stake out centrist positions on these issues and win some "moderate" conservative votes without crossing a line that alienates his progressive base.

The danger is that, in aiming for the center, Obama will cross lines that progressives view as betrayals - as he did on warrantless wiretapping.

The best way for Obama to avoid crossing those lines is to discuss his plans with progressives before he announces them to the public. Unfortunately, Obama has shown no interest in discussing much of anything with progressives. And that's the single biggest danger his campaign faces between now and November, because he needs more than our money and our votes - he needs our enthusiasm and commitment.

And that's why it's essential that progressives organize ourselves separately from (or within!) Obama's campaign and do everything we can to make Obama deal with us substantively - and openly.