Redstate Roundtable: Obama's Unending Psychology of Change
That's a lotta flipflop
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Abortion | ANWR | Barack Obama | Redstate Roundtable — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let's sit down next to the couch for a moment to discuss this. Five questions for Contributors (and you!) are at the end.
Over the past few months, a strong meme has developed regarding Barack Obama: that his loyalties to a position are only as strong as they 
need to be given the demands of the moment. His eagerness to throw close associates or even mentors like Jeremiah Wright under the bus if the press or the political right demands it is second to none in the history of presidential politics. He has no qualms about shifting positions - such as on meeting without preconditions with the leaders of enemy nations - if it will squelch a media storm or make it easier to win a state. He has not a stubborn bone in his body, it appears - and is, to put it simply, not a fan of inconvenient truths.
But in the month since Obama cinched the Democratic nomination, this stream of flipflops has become a torrent. A brief summary:
-Obama said the D.C. handgun ban and the almost as restrictive Chicago ban were constitutional and supported handgun restrictions, but now he says definitively that it was unconstitutional.
-Obama promised he would accept public financing when he thought he'd need it, but then decided he'd rather not.
-Obama opposed welfare reform while in Illinois, but now says he supports it.
-Obama opposed the death penalty on principle and supported a moratorium on capital punishment - even implying that Osama Bin Laden should not be "martyred" by it - and now he believes it is justified not just in the case of homicide and terrorism, but also of child rape and other circumstances.
-Obama opposed legal immunity for telecom companies for cooperating with government security surveillance, but now he claims to support it.
And just this past week came two of the largest flipflops - certainly the greatest ones I have ever witnessed DURING THE COURSE of a presidential campaign:
-Obama supported immediate day one withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but now says he'll "refine" his position and listen to the commanders on the ground if they tell him to phase out the troops slowly, while still claiming to support an impossible mark of 16 months to a total withdrawal. You can read the three different versions of this new Obama position on Iraq here.
-Obama supported unlimited access to abortion, including taxpayer funding and opposing born alive infant protection, but now he says he supports states rights to restrict and even prohibit all late-term abortions, and have now requirement to have a health exception that allows for the (overwhelmingly used) basis of "mental health."
The story is here, and his inevitable attempt to refine further is here. As for the original interview, the full text is here, and below the fold.
Read on for the questions and responses...
Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate's stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
Obama: I absolutely can, so please don't believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
The other email rumor that's been floating around is that somehow I'm unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That's just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the "Born Alive" bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That's not a fair characterization, and that's not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.
Strang: You've said you're personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?
Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that's something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.
Again, it is extremely significant that Obama takes this position in regard to restricting "late-term" abortions, as the allowance that it is "entirely appropriate" for states to "restrict or even prohibit late term abortions" without a mental health exception flies in the face of NARAL's preferred interpretations of Roe, Doe, Webster, and Carhart - NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently believe that most of the 36 states that restrict late term abortion have unconstitutional bans. By supporting these restrictions, Obama is supporting the right of states to prevent roughly 40,000 abortions annually, or approximately 4.5% of total abortions (since the vast majority of abortions are in the first 12 weeks). Viewed another way, or as most NARAL supporters would: Obama believes it is "entirely appropriate" to restrict the abortion access of 40,000 women each year.
What is perhaps even more notable is that, in almost every one of these cases, Obama claims that this is not a reversal of a prior position - that his candidate surveys were filled out wrong, that his statements were misinterpreted, or that he has only changed his position slightly based on new facts - and he has yet to even say this last excuse with any volume.
So here are my roundtable questions for the group:
1) Is this the sign of a politician who truly is interested in reaching across partisan boundaries, or is it merely the mark of a politician whose success is more about his personal celebrity than actual ideological fealty to any positions?
2) Is it that Obama wants to win so much that he is willing to say anything to gain the support of the swing voters of America, or is it that Obama as a young politician simply does not care enough about any of these issues to have any degree of loyalty to his prior positions?
3) Please rate a percentage of likelihood that, by election day, Obama has made a statement of some kind in support of drilling in ANWR.
4) How is it even possible to successfully argue with a candidate whose positions are so fleeting, or as Victor Davis Hanson puts it, is as ideologically slippery as the sea god Proteus?
5) Had Obama taken any of these last two positions - on abortion and Iraq - in April, would he today be the Democratic nominee?
blackhedd
The one thing that has been absolutely constant about Obama throughout his career, and indeed from his early adulthood, is his strict adherence to the following principle: Speak, But Don’t Act.
The only thing I can think of in his entire resume that has required action at least on occasion, is his presidency of the Harvard Law Review. Perhaps that tenure is where we should look for clues to his leadership style.
He’s managed to utterly perfect the paradigm of the mirror, in which he manages to say to any particular audience exactly what it is that will make them feel morally uplifted and enlightened. (Bill Clinton had a superficially-similar talent, which was to make everyone feel loved and appreciated. Unlike Obama, however, Clinton’s talent extended down to audiences of one, whereas Obama is diffident and arrogant in small groups.)
But because Obama has elevated inaction to a near-fetish (the chain of “present” votes in the Illinois Senate is the key emblem of his governing style), your questions are impossible to answer.
Obama is doing something that, among recent Democratic Presidential contenders, only Bill Clinton has managed to do: run to the center and even the center-right (where the voters are) without betraying a hint of irony or discomfort. Is this because he has no values, principles, or moral compass? Or is it because he’s the Shakespeare of Liars? Is he clueless, or is he craven?
We can’t know the answer to that question at this time, and yet it’s one of the keys to how he will govern as President. If he’s been lying to us, he’ll unleash a torrent of progressive domestic policy and incoherent foreign policy that will be shredded to pieces both in the US Senate and in public opinion, and he will fail miserably.
If he really is a chameleon, he’ll be just as ineffectual as Bill Clinton was, and our biggest worries will be about drift at the top of the government, and uncontrolled opportunism by the middle and senior-level administrators. In a word, corruption.
There is another possibility, which is that Obama’s commitment to inaction is actually a value in itself and not just a risk-management technique. He may actually believe that the Presidency of the United States is all about being glamorous and brilliant on the world’s biggest stage. He may expect to inspire an adulatory personality cult, especially elsewhere in the world, that would put Nicolas Sarkozy’s to shame.
What would be odd about this is that the next President will come to office at a time (unlike any since 1932) when the national mood is receptive to a total government takeover of the economy. The next President will have the opportunity for greatness (for good or for ill), but we don’t actually know if that’s what Obama really wants for himself. If it is what he wants, he will be among the most dangerous men in American history.
The other important key to an Obama Presidency is his demonstrated tendency to diffidence and isolation. He is not someone who builds bridges to independent centers of power. He appears instead to fear them. He surrounds himself with a layer of similarly weak people that he dominates through fear and that serve more as a buffer zone than as a brain trust. And he’s shown exactly the kind of insecurity that causes weak leaders to get rid of anyone who shows initiative and leadership. He’s the kind of guy I might consider installing as a chief economist, a general counsel, or (stretching it), maybe the CFO of a business. But never, ever as a CEO.
Your question about drilling in ANWR is actually a very good one. This is the only issue on which Obama has shown a flicker of true conviction, albeit of a thoroughly conventional kind. People in his social class are so committed to the idea that America must consume less energy rather than more, that to suggest otherwise would be about as unthinkable as to stop breathing. If he flips on this issue, we’ll have a fairly good clue that he is craven rather than clueless.
Pejman Yousefzadeh
1. Barack Obama is absolutely tough, absolutely ruthless and absolutely devoted to winning no matter what. 20 years ago, he was a community organizer. 10 years ago, he was a lawyer fresh out of law school with debt up to his eyeballs and working at a small firm. Now he is the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. You do not get to be in this position unless you have razor blades on your elbows. He is just as ruthless--if not more--about winning than the Clintons ever were.
2. The former. See point 1.
3. I am willing to say that there is something along the lines of a 1 in 3 chance that Obama will come out with some "third way" approach to drilling somewhere--if not in ANWR.
4. Point out the inconsistencies as best as you can, point out that his new positions should not satisfy Republicans and should infuriate Democrats. Hammer away at this with constant and repetitive messaging. Get the press to raise questions--as they did yesterday regarding Obama's policy for withdrawing from Iraq and his sudden willingness to consider "refining" those policies. Kerry proved that voters don't like a weather vane. Make Obama into one. He is not the Messiah. He is just an ordinary politician.
5. No. Or at least, very likely not--unless the Clintons decided in response to any apostasy to show themselves to be even more politically incompetent than they proved to be during the course of the primary and caucus season.
Dan McLaughlin
I go away for a week, and Obama decides to become Mitt Romney. (You will recall how I felt about the original). Seriously, I have whiplash from all the sudden changes.
*This* now is why Obama was so eager to run before he had a real record in the US Senate - he has less now to run away from.
I don't know how we run against a guy like this. It's what Clinton did best, shift shapes at will and deny he had done son with nobody in the media willing or able to call him on it. A month ago, I was confident that the GOP could Dukakis him - now, with Obama willing to say absolutely anything and his acolytes willing to accept that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, I am less sure.
Of this, I am certain: Obama will put no value on any of these promises after the election. On Iraq and FISA, reality may in any event have compelled Obama to be less fundamentally irresponsible than his prior positions, but most of the rest is stuff he feels free to say today because he intends to appoint judges who will také or keep these issues away from the democratic process.
We will live to miss Tim Russert more than we yet know.
Thomas Crown
Maybe. Then again, Clinton had an advantage Obama does not: He did have a record, and it really was a fairly centrist (or at least, wobbling between left and right) one. Lurches to center and center-right were part of his narrative before he ever hit the national stage. Put differently, it's hard to call someone a liberal when the only hot button issue on which he's (suddenly) a true liberal, abortion, is because of a position half of the electorate holds (or thinks they do). Half of the electorate is not liberal.
By contrast, Kitten has never lived in the center. The question is whether there are enough real journalists left to demonstrate that.
blackhedd:
You’re taking journalists at their word when they say that they labor in service of the truth. In reality, they live in search of a good story. Rather than construct a story about the fact that Obama has never actually lived where he now says he is and is indeed a pandering traditional politician, journalists would much rather chronicle the grand narrative of America’s embrace of a new kind of leader.
You get Pulitzers for selling papers, not for telling the truth. That goes double when the truth is uncomfortable.
Thomas Crown:
I take them at nothing of the sort. My statement assumes that some of them do (or might), despite what the herd does.
Dan McLaughlin
Most journalists *believe* they are telling the unvarnished truth. That belief is important to their self-image. The reasons why they fail are varied, ranging from bias to groupthink to simple lack of knowledge and skill.
blackhedd
To bring this back to the Obama story, it matters because the swing voters don't really have any room in their brains for more than one narrative. People seem to love the feeling that they "know what's going on," and they get that feeling from consuming news products, but they don't really gain anything from critical thought.
So we're talking about trying to get the voters to see that Obama is a RINO, and to vote against him on that basis. But I don't think people have enough mental bandwidth to displace the received narrative and seriously consider that alternative view.
The best hope is for forced errors, in which Obama hurts himself by saying what he actually thinks, thus polluting the mainstream narrative. Intriguingly, this is the kind of behavior that journos enjoy (because it makes them look smart, which is the beginning and the end of what they have to sell).
Thomas Crown
Well, that's the thing: In theory, those brave set the narrative sorts should be down his throat in the next week, as he's now emulating Bush *and* Nixon, the betes noirs of the two generations who populate the mainstream and indie press. if they're pushing a product (Kitten) rather than a process, they won't.
Semi-related side note: Given that Iraq is more important to Doug Kmiec than life issues, what does this latest dogiri do to him?
Dan McLaughlin
Oceania has always been at war with Iraq, silly.
The unforced errors question is yet another reason we will miss Russert so. He was very good at setting people up to make those.
Neil Stevens
I hope that becomes the title of at least one RS post.
Moe Lane
1. I'm going to go with Answer C: He's a politician who is essentially trying to find the right combination that will unlock his current ceiling of +5. Which is bad for him: the race is going to tighten, and he does overpoll.
2. Obviously, I'm going with Answer A, with a modification: he isn't willing to say anything. He's pretty much forced to say anything. He can't win without more than urban liberals and African-Americans, which means that he has to run to the center.
3. If pro-drilling in ANWR gets above 60%, he will make that statement.
4. Argue? Argue? Why in God's name are we planning to argue with the man? Said plan assumes that he has a coherent, or even internally self-consistent, position on the issues in the first place. What we do is we keep highlighting the contradictions... and we make him talk about things off-the-cuff whenever possible. Obama is a completely different politician without a Teleprompter. A worse one, especially when he hasn't slept recently. Let's have fun with that.
5. Possibly not, but somebody would have been, and it wouldn't be because the superdelegates would had taken the choice away from the delegates - oh, and the primary voters: but nobody in that Party really cares about them anyway.
Hunter Baker
1. He's Bill Clinton with a tan and a libido in check. Holding office is far more important than any other objective. Political technique will fully and completely rule over political ends. Nixon had some of this, too, but without the charisma.
2. Obama cares about the liberal causes, but HE has become more important than the issues. This is why Reagan's self-deprecating nature was so important. He always understood it wasn't about him.
3. 100% with some kind of proposal that drilling revenues be taxed in support of environmental stewardship/development, etc.
4. You cannot argue the issues. You can only convince people that this overarching HE is not worth electing over a crusty SOB who loves his country. The HE has to be seen as dangerous and/or incompetent rather than loveable and savior-esque.
5. Absolutely not. We can be thankful the democratic primary got so much attention.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Complaint Filed Over Obama’s Sweetheart Mortgage Deal — Comments (21) »
Redstate Roundtable: Obama's Unending Psychology of Change 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
1&2: I think you have mischaracterized Obama to a degree. Liberalism has always been the triumph of style over substance. It is more important to "care" than to "succeed". This is why so many social programs are such money wasting failures, they are the shipwrecks of idealism run aground on the rocks of reality. Against this backdrop, Obama is the ideal candidate. He says nothing, while making liberals feel good about themselves in their self congratulatory display of post racial enlightenment. They hear what they want to hear, and his words can take on any meaning you want. I could probably make a good case for Reagan conservatism using quotes from his earlier speeches.
3: It might not be ANWR but it will be something equally jaw dropping. The reason goes back to the previous point. As Moe pointed out he is stuck right now. He got as high as he could on hope and change and it isn't good enough to win the general. Depending how you count, he is stuck between 44% and 48%, and at this point he should be above 50% to counter the usual slide the occurs when people begin to pay attention in September. During the summer people always pick the new guy when polled and they don't have a strong opinion. He needs at least 49% in October to have a shot and the numbers aren't working. The result is he needs to find a combo that will keep enough of his core support while getting independents and Hillary supporters to support him. As I said last week, his instincts are to try and destroy his opponent, but that isn't working. This week it is shift to the center. Next week it is anyone's guess.
4: Tough question. My gut tells me that when your opponent is self destructing, get out of the way. I think the right move is actually to not run against Obama. Treat him like the inexperienced child he is and run on a strong pro growth, low tax, smart energy policy agenda for America. Let him keep making the unforced errors.
5: No. Once Texas was over most of the early states would have liked a do over. If Wright had blown up in his face before Super Tuesday we would be talking about how to beat Hillary. I think that would have been harder to do because she is ultimately less dangerous to the country.
"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."
1. He is obviously not interested in being bipartisan. If he was then he would have done so before the last 2 weeks. He just became the general election candidate and he is shifting to the center faster than any I can recall. It's not only political pandering. It's textbook political pandering taken to the extreme.
2. Most 46 year olds know exactly what they believe. ALL 46 year old politicians know exactly what they believe. Obama has been involved in politics since college, for the last 25 years. He has had decades to figure out his ideology.
He may not be willing to say anything, but he is willing to say nearly anything to be elected. I am quite sure that Obama and his advisors have planned out exactly what issues they can afford to take centrist or conservative positions on, and also figuring out which fli-flops they can reverse back to the liberal position after elected.
3. The likelyhood that Obama will support drilling in ANWAR is 5%. He is much more likely to support drilling in a specific offshore area. He could say he wants to triple the offshore area for drilling (which would be very little) and institute a environmental tax on oil companies. The net result would be that the environmental tax cancel out the extra drilling resources and prices stay high, but it would confuse voters who watch the debates.
4. His positions may be fleeting, but that only makes him easier to argue against. On issues that he switched positions, mention why the liberal position is wrong and then use his own words against him. On issues that he didn't switch positions hammer home why his position is bad for our country.
5) By April he already had the nomination sewn up. Hillary did extremely well since then but still lost. If Obama had today's position on Iraq and abortion before February 5th he probably would have lost. His position on Iraq would have been the same as Hillary's, giving up his advantage with anti-war activists. His position on abortion would have given Hillary a slightly bigger edge with Democratic women.
Obviously, this FISA bill will be used by Obama as his track record as bipartisan. Funny, it doesn't sound as such but merely a weakness of resolve.
He hit the wrong button at FISA. Sorry, won't add up to Obama's votes.
Lying to one's core principles is self-defeating.
Please no explanation necessary.
HE IS A LIAR, AND HE'S USING THE DEVIL'S STYLE OF LYING... TWISTING FORMER STATEMENTS TO YIELD ANOTHER STATEMENT WITH THE FLAVOR OF THE FORMER WHILE SAYING SOMETHING NEW.
My Old Man advised me: "STAY AWAY FROM PEOPLE USING LIES OF THE DEVIL! BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED".
Vote for McCain... Period!
1/2) I suspect he now believes it is somehow morally right that he should be president and if you have to pander to the voters that's fine, after all electing him is what's good for them so why not tell them what they want to hear.
3) He will attempt a position that offers the possibility with a lot of hedging. On election he'll leave it to get lost in Congress.
4. It will take a lot of nerve, but McCain may have the only way to defeat him ready made. By emphisising "straight talk" and not shifting his positions too much, the contrast to the H/C-brand snake-oil is very strong and it shows up the flip-flops from the other side. It's still a tough race, but it is doable.
5. Probably not, but no surprise. if Clinton had won it she'd be taking hard to the centre as we speak.
[if you are going to use html tags please use them correctly-- streiff]
You can pander, yes. It means reaching out and understand what others say.
But saying to one group something while saying to other the "opposite" thing is not pandering. It's lying.
If the left is surprised by this then they have as little experience as Obama!
Fellow conservatives, please take the time to read my takes on this:
http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/flexibility/#more-129
http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/even-more-flexible/#more-130
Thanks for helping a a fellow conservative
I suppose my comments should be tempered by the fact the political illuminati seem to carry more value these days. Nonetheless, here we go;
Overall, this electorate has been fastidious in their choice of politicians and what is defined as acceptable behavior. I frankly believe there is a dearth of knowledge about how our government works and substantial lack of real, factual knowledge on the issues or true belief by folks they can actually make a difference (much of that, I believe, is an excuse; but I digress). Otherwise, politicians such as Obama (and I say that deliberately as to remind folks that is his moniker), would not have an opportunity to be so duplicitous.
To put this in idyllic terms, a person lives his life based on principals and beliefs. While a person can certainly always honestly experience an epiphany, (exempli gratia experience the horror and sorrow of abortion, then adopt a position inclined towards life) it is circumstance and motivation that help understand the virtuousness of such an event.
Furthering that analogy, for no other reason than illustration, I have read and blogged about Obama’s position on abortion long ago and actually read/linked to the Illinois Senate debates. He was passionate about his position against life, which was even harsher than the position held by NARAL. He has been supported by all the relevant pro-abortion groups consistently over time.
So one has to ask; was he disingenuous with them and working towards the interest of political expediency in a state where polling often runs against abortion restrictions? Is Obama now, for the sake of different electoral demographics, again engaged in such an endeavor because he feels a percentage of that vote (pro life/religious) is necessary? Rhetorically, that question can be found in the fairly substantial (and underreported - unquestioned) changes across his positions.
Obama is a political opportunist who uses his training as an organizer and oratory skills to swoon an otherwise disinterested audience. They adoring masses are fed up with the state of politics and too blinded by the forest to see the trees; having Obama as their choice for President makes their decision topical, effortless and convenient. He is put on a pedestal by the press, treated like a celebrity and sold to them with marketing campaigns.
This is of course all grotesquely irresponsible just like many other decisions that liberal philosophy implores them to make. It breeds dependency and gives government free reign to be further intrusive in our lives; I can think of nothing more destructive to this Republic and our freedom. This reminds me of a quote from Voltaire;
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
So, finally will Obama shift on ANWR or the general concept of more drilling? Absolutely, it is expedient and the growing realization of a vast majority in our country this needs to be done. Not changing his position would cost him votes and a pure politician, such as Obama, will corrupt and lithe his positions to a point where he convinces the masses he was the fount of their parturiency.
My apologies for somewhat demurring and being so prolix in a thread.
Sir Bedivere
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
"Is this a sign of a politician who is truly interested in reaching across partisan boundaries[?]"
Yes, I believe these examples reveal why he sincerely believes he is "post-partisan." He has the capacity to comprehend the views of the diverse polity; articulate specific points where he feels sympathy; reason about the policy implications. His modus operandi is that of "bargainer." However, what he believes about himself and what he actually is -- as determined by what he does -- are incongruous. His actions have been completely servile to his main support group: The Left. Given the 2008-2010 political landscape that just ain't changing and given his MO he isn't one to buck it. So his interest in reaching across partisan boundaries is not effective; it is superficially real.
"is it that Obama as a young politician simply does not care enough about any of these issues to have any degree of loyalty to his prior positions?"
The motivational psychology at work here goes back to the "bargainer." His positions are formed in his sympathies for and identification with his audience. From the primary campaign to general it is his audience which has shifted. His "loyalty" is more to his audience than to ideas/positions. Maybe he always saw in his own mind some of our side of things but just didn't find any reason to talk about it when the conversation was strictly with "the other side." So from his own subjective point of view, he isn't shifting; rather, he is just responding -- consistently with his MO -- to his shifting environment. From our (more objective) point of view, he has no loyalty to his positions.
"drilling in ANWR?"
Actually support it > 10%. Acknowledge possible reasons for supporting > 50%.
"How to successfully argue against?"
Hah. Set and control the narrative. Fat chance with this MSM.
"Would he be the nominee?'
He had to convince The Left that he is one of them. Their cynics are now prone to believe that he is speaking with a wink and a nod. Some sincere believers are willing to give in on appearances for the fantasy of unification behind one who they believe truly shares their values. He is going to lose some of the ideologues, those who knew all along that talk of "unity" is blather. He has belatedly realized that being Obama the Unifier (at heart the bargainer) requires him to throw under the bus some of those who carried him to the nomination. That has presented some disturbing cognitive dissonance to his MO.
This leaves me asking whether the man's psychology can hold up to the strains of presidential politics.
1) The latter
2) The latter
3) ANWR - 5%, offshore drilling - 60%
4) Good question, constantly applying light to his position shifts is a start. Mr. Hanson's analogy is priceless.
5) Not a chance
Status of Jerusalem from being undivided at his AIPAC speech to being "discussed amongst the parties" the day after his speech
Jim Johnson- supported his dealings in the Countrywide debacle before throwing him under the bus
He "loved" town halls before refusing to do town halls with McCain
vowed to unilaterally renogotiate NAFTA during the primaries to now stating he was "overheated" and would not renogotiate them
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment"- Barack Carter Obama
1)Typical politician looking for self gain and was manipulated into running by ego stroking far left malcontents
2)Obama wants to win and please his handlers so bad he will do and say whatever they tell him too on any given day. Hence the meme that certain topics are off limits!
3) 65% although it's far more likely he'll capitulate on all other types of energy reform and keep ANWR as a position he never wavered on.
4) It's not and that''s the point I'm sure!
5) NO!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report