EDITORIAL: Obama flips and flops

As Barack Obama continues to campaign for the general election, his flip-flops increase along the way. Thus, he is jeopardizing the image he has cultivated as an authentic and principled candidate. His reversals are so egregious that, at this rate, he risks snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mr. Obama’s credibility was first breached during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy. When video surfaced of Rev. Wright making inflammatory statements at Trinity United Church, Mr. Obama took a principled stand: “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” Yet, the Illinois senator subsequently denounced his pastor and then left Trinity United Church. Mr. Obama’s statements throughout the controversy revealed that he was deceptive: Either he knew that Rev. Wright was a radical preacher and therefore initially feigned ignorance of his ideology, or, Mr. Obama did not know Rev. Wright had so many extreme viewpoints, which means he overstated his commitment and zeal for Trinity United Church. Mr. Obama’s mishandling of the Rev. Wright controversy was the first major, visible crack in his public image as a man of principle.

Since then, the flip-flops abound - on small matters and large. Mr. Obama declared during the primaries that he would opt out of The North American Free Trade Agreement if it was not re-negotiated; he then stated that his rhetoric had been “overheated.” He pledged to accept public financing; he then decided to forgo public financing because John McCain and the Republicans would “game the system.” He stated that he was willing to meet rogue leaders “without preconditions” only to declare later that certain preconditions were necessary before engaging in talks. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he stated that he would support an “undivided Jerusalem;” he then said he had been misunderstood. He declared that the D.C. gun ban was constitutional, only to later praise the recent Supreme Court ruling that the gun ban is unconstitutional. He was opposed to granting immunity to telecommunications companies for wire-tapping and yet he now favors this. When he came under fire during the primaries for not wearing a flag lapel pin, he stated that he stopped wearing it because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” He now wears a flag lapel pin.

Perhaps in isolation, each of these incidents could be justified. However, there is a pattern emerging: Mr. Obama does not stand his ground when it is not politically expedient. When he reverses course, he is willing to blame others for his errors in judgement. He also makes convoluted, misleading statements. The Democrat is both a flip-flopper and a deceiver. This is indeed a manifestation of audacity - but does not offer voters much hope for “new politics.”