This is a synopsis of an article written in the LA Times. I would like to be sure that there is equal time for the different sides in this discussion.

As Barack Obama moves to broaden his appeal beyond loyal Democrats, a chorus of anger and disappointment has arisen from the left. But those voices are a distinct minority because the party has a more pressing concern: winning in November.

Obama again bucked his liberal allies, voting in the Senate to give legal immunity to phone companies that took part in warrantless wiretapping after the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics chided Obama for the vote — which put him crossways with dozens of Democratic colleagues, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Few voters cast their ballots based on a single issue, making much of the discussion of Obama’s evolution — real or imagined — just so much talk by political insiders. Significantly, though, many have accepted what they see as Obama’s shift.
The last Democrat to occupy the White House, Bill Clinton, benefited from the same sort of shrugging acceptance from the left. A few years in the political wilderness can do a lot to promote party unity.

In 1992, Clinton ran on a platform that included deficit reduction and “ending welfare as we know it” — hardly Democratic orthodoxy. Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, also left the campaign trail to preside over the execution of a mentally incapacitated inmate, Ricky Ray Rector, and famously went before Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition to repudiate Sister Souljah, a hip-hop artist and political activist.

While there was some outcry from liberal activists, the overwhelming majority of Democrats — and liberal voters — stuck with Clinton in the fall. More significantly, the moves strengthened Clinton’s reputation as “a different kind of Democrat,” broadening his appeal and helping him win a three-way contest against President George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot.

All this assumes that you would be interested in another Clinton-esque president.