"If I was Obama I would prefer Hume, Wallace, et al attack me for standing up for the constitution rather than being just another flip flopping politician."

Flip-flopping on an issue is a vital talking point for anyone debating a candidacy who gets a legitimate opportunity to bring it up- especially when the flip-flop lands on the same side as their side, the opposition.

For one thing, when validly brought up, the point is unassailable (as any ordinary person who has tried to defend a candidate who has clearly flip-flopped already knows, such weaseling doesn't get very far in face to face political arguments among regular folks- in contrast to studiously polite & innocuous television moderators, who typically permit partisan spokespeople to perform all manner of unconvincing contortions without interrupting or showing signs of skepticism.)

Also, as was pointed out in Glenn's article, political flip-flopping (for any reason other than a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind) makes a candidate vulnerable to doubts about their integrity and character- which are typically much more damaging than a controversial stance on a given political issue.

As George W. Bush has demonstrated time and again, unprincipled resolve beats unprincipled vacillation.

Finally, strictly regarding a position on a given issue: any time someone reverses course on a matter to agree with the side taken by the political opposition, it obviously reinforces the legitimacy of that opposition's stance. This is especially true when a political opposition gives up a challenge to the status quo set forth by a sitting administration. After all, if the party with the incumbency has already taken the proper course, why vote in an imitation?

This is especially true when the matter at hand is related to bedrock issues like Constitutional values, rather than more relative issues like funding priorities.

Funding issues are amenable to negotiation (except for Republicans, as the record of the current president and his Congressional acolytes has clearly demonstrated- "he [Obama] will generally try to compromise rather than confront. Virtually all Republicans are for this"- souriscriant, are you joking?)

By contrast, matters of Constitutional values and principle are non-negotiable. Or they should be. One either stands by their beliefs on such issues, or they change their beliefs.

But on such matters, no one gets to change their legislative votes, while claiming to maintain beliefs to the contrary.

That's what John McCain just did, with his recent votes and statements on the issues of torture and prisoner treatment, and Guantanamo Bay.

The score was decidedly in Obama's favor...now what?

What would Alinsky do?

He might keep a wary on BO.
That's just prudent.
It is not necessary for anyone to make a decision right now. Right now we are all okay. Nothing has really changed today. Why not wait at least until Early Voting begins to make your final decision? See how all this develops. Look for a pattern. Maybe BO will be able to account for himself (I wouldn't know how... not my area). Meanwhile, know that everything BO has done is straight out of the Alinsky playbook. BO is no dummy. BO is no novice. That does not mean that BO is not still learning.

I remember the last lines from Some Like It Hot:

Jerry: Oh, you don't understand, Osgood! Ehhhh... I'm a man.
Osgood: Well, nobody's perfect!

Yes, I remember that column. Krugman is almost never wrong when he makes statements like that, and even his predictions are remarkably accurate.

It is a mathematical theorem that in a two-candidate, plurality voting election, both candidates will position themselves toward the center. This is called the Median Voter Theorem in social choice theory; there are numerous references on the web.

While the Median Voter Theorem holds under idealized conditions, some argument could be made that because elections are pitched at such a low level that the conditions are approximately realized. The conditions of the Median Voter Theorem are that the election is a single-issue election, such as "hope" versus "fear"; the candidates know the distribution of voter preferences on the issue; the distribution of voter preferences has a single peak (not bi- or multi-modal), and so on. Moving to the median voter is a nash-equilibrium for each of the candidates.

Part of the difficulty is with plurality voting--I suggest a move to approval voting.

wrote:

Also, as was pointed out in Glenn's article, political flip-flopping (for any reason other than a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind) makes a candidate vulnerable to doubts about their integrity and character-

And here is a case where a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind back to his initial position would be justified.

From your previous post:

"Note that protecting the Constitution and ones individual liberties is not something that is yet asked about. And the only open-ended poll, while some people may have included this as under "other", it is apparently less than 4%

The politicians will care when people care..."

souriscriant, I just went to the original site of your link. What it demonstrates to me is that the pollsters who write the questions don't care.

http://www.pollingreport.com/issues.htm

(originally supplied link wouldn't track)

the "this" in this quote

"he [Obama] will generally try to compromise rather than confront. Virtually all Republicans are for this"- souriscriant, are you joking? was referring to the FISA bill. The problem is Republicans vote in a block, which means if you are going to be a Uniter, a heck of alot of caving.

Yes, I got that the pollsters don't care about this issue, which was why I was careful to look for and mention the one open ended question poll, which I reproduce here:

CBS News Poll. May 30-June 3, 2008. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

."What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

%

Economy/Jobs

34

Gas/Heating oil

16

War in Iraq

15

Health care

4

Other

28

Unsure

3

You need to wake the people up before you can expect the politicians (who, after all, are supposed to be representing the people) care

And here is a case where a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind back to his initial position would be justified.

As well as entirely welcome, for many of us out here in the voting public. Perhaps a crucial number.

On the topic of the massive data archive turned over by the telecoms to the NSA (& by all indications, to the non-nonexistent Total Information Awareness program): any chance of getting that erased from their files?