Barack Obama is under hostile fire for changing his position on the D.C. gun ban.
Oh, I'm sorry. He didn't change his position, apparently. He reworded a clumsy statement.
That, at least, is what his campaign is saying. The same campaign that tried to spin his flip-flop in rejecting public financing as embracing the spirit of reform, if not the actual position he had once promised to embrace.
Is this becoming a pattern? Wouldn't it be better for Obama to say he had thought more about such-and-such an issue and simply changed his mind? Is that verboten in American politics? Is it better to engage in linguistic pretzel-twisting in an effort to prove that you didn't change your mind?
Why should Obama take the risk of having that he changed position exposed?
He thinks he can get away with it, and that the media will cover him.
As Glen Reynolds finds out with further reading of the article
Reynolds has another post about Obama's "flipflops" and notes something
To expand a bit: Either the people who believed the early-primary left-talk are the rubes, or the people who believe Obama now are the rubes . . . or anyone who thinks Obama has fixed principles at all is a rube. Your call.
And Obama has some problems... with Youtube.
Damn people smearing him by putting his various public statements together.
No comments:
Post a Comment