There was no mealy-mouthed, mushy talk of 'inartful' prior statements or long, wordy explanations of how nothing he said today was a contradiction to the opposite thing he said the day before.

Also, screw you for the "you live in a bubble" cheap shot.  I'll tell you who lives in a freakin' reality of his own invention, the guy who claims there is anti-Obama rhetoric at this site worse than what you'd see at redstate or freerepublic.

link

In reality, I'm not so sure there would be a drastic difference in the approaches taken by McCain and Obama in Iraq. At this point, Petraeus is being hailed as a the miracle worker, so either would defer to him for fear of stirring up the hornet's nest again and getting the blame for it.

I know Obama-supporters who think that if Obama is elected, he'll end the Iraq War within 16 months. They're going to be disappointed. In their view, however, they've bought the Obama campaign's contrast on the issue: McCain likes war in general and we'll be there forever; Obama thinks this war is stupid and will wrap it up and get the troops home ASAP.

Leading in accordance with one's principles and core beliefs does not mean that everything is black and white - it doesn't rule out the gray,  being open to the options within that personal boundary that may be available as circumstances change - but the circumstance that tops the list should not be "need to get votes from XYZ demographic," and that's the circumstance that many of us see as controlling here.

Does the 4th Amendment mean anything to Obama?  Does he believe in reproductive freedom or not?  DOes he believe in the separation of church and state?  Does he believe in equal rights or not?

"MyLeftMind" will no doubt inform us that Obama is simple operating within his "gray" area - that's just his flexibility showing.  But that would mean that there is nothing but gray for Obama, and that means he is devoid of substance.

On Iraq, he boxed himself into that corner all by himself, so eager was he to be the anti-war candidate to get the anti-Hillary vote. Okay, fine, Barack - now you're one election away from being the president, with that big, sloppy mess of a war on your plate.  But you know as well as I do that you still have to be the anti-war candidate to garner the anti-war vote, even though you know as well as we all do that there is no way it is going to be as simple as just "bringing them home."

I'm with McCain on this one.  I won't vote for him, but if what Clinton said made her a doubletalker then Sen. Obama is just as bad or worse.

This is not a good topic for Clinton supporters, I suppose.

When the primary only proved that this kind of thing can take down a politician, the McCain campaign would do well -- strategically speaking - to make a DEVASTATING ad on Obama splicing cherry picked quotes of his together.

Is his campaign dishonest or disorganized?

Lists many "mind changes" not talked about much here and ends with this:

Obama's very bad June suggests two possibilities: He may be one of the more unprincipled politicians we've seen recently - remember, Obama once mocked the Clintons for their prevarications, saying "They don't tell you what they mean." Or perhaps his mistakes are honest - which would make the Obama campaign one of the more intellectually disorganized enterprises in recent presidential history.

It's unclear which prospect is greater cause for concern.

I thinnk Obama's expression of patriotism, although intellectually satisfying is really crap politics.  

"gee shucks this is teh best place on earth."

Because an inflexible unwillingness to respond to changing conditions, even at risk of further endangering lives, is principled?

It's funny that they are using this line of attack because polling says that people think both men are flip floppers.  It's actually part of their appeal believe it or not.
Poll

That contrasts to Bush who people didn't see that way.  

What are his core principles? What policies will he fight for?

Perhaps I'd feel better about voting for him (which I do plan to do) if I knew.

So maybe some of you who are pleased with him can help by explaining what he stands for.

People often will not make assumptions based on rational considerations, but rather on emotional ones. Once in place, those assumptions color their interpretation of any and every event that comes along.

So the interesting question is why the original assumption forms in the first place. I cant begin to wonder what that would be for you.

So let me just ask you this simple question. What is it about the African American community in Chicago that they are not able to see what someone did to them, the way you can see it (lemme guess here, you are not an African Amercian from Chicago)? Are they all stupid, naive, or blind? Do you really think that your interpretation, coming from who knows where, is more accurate than the interpretation of the people who knew him and worked with him for 20 years?

It's not for nothing Obama says he'll "begin to withdraw" US troops from Iraq. He's carefully avoiding to committing himself to completing the process.

So, if you were the nominee, you'd just flat out promise a total withdrawal before you were elected, and without any consultation with the commanding generals, the State Dept, et al., right?

He can't do what rabid anti-war types want him to do because he won't know what the situation on the ground is until January 20, 2009.

I know you think he's the devil incarnate, not a democrat, closet muslim, Chicago gangster and such, but do you really expect him to set firm deadlines right now?

I probably have an emotionally based desire to think well of the guy. I have been through these kind of things so many times - I fully understand that no pol will ever be terribly close to what I really want

Obama first appeared on my radar in a debate with the execrable Alan Keyes, where he handled himelf with great dignity and intelligence. Since then, I haven't seen much change in either his positions, or in his behavior. I have no emotional investment in his candidacy, though. I just think he's the right guy for the job at this time.

I would note that I would have happily (very happily) voted for Clinton, Dodd, Edwards or even Biden, had one of them been the winner in the primaries. If I thought that Obama had somehow "stolen" the primary, I would not hesitate to decry such behavior. But, to me, that position simply defies reason, and is risible.

On inauguration day, the President pledges to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That Obama is a Constitutional scholar probably doesn't hurt. That one of the cornerstones of his overall philosophy is transparency in government is also encouraging.

Obama is far from perfect, as he frequently points out, but he's the strongest Democratic Presidential candidate I've seen in decades, and he's as close to a progressive that we're going to get in this country, at least for now.

When progressives can make the case that conservatism has been a massive fail for the middle-class in a way that resonates with voters, maybe we'll get a Democratic candidate who is perfect in all the progressive positions and still electable. Till that day comes (and I very much doubt it will), I'm going to continue to vote for the Democratic nominee (you know, the one who 18 million Democrats voted for in this primary, and who won the required number of delegates, according to the rules of the Party). And remember, I'm from Chicago, so, according to someone here, I'll vote early and often (it's the "Chicago Way.")