Political analysis? Journalism? In Salon's War Room? I was about to give up under the terrible reign of King Koppeleman the Hack. Thank you, Steve Benen, for giving me back something worthwhile to read with my daily dose of Glenn Greenwald.

Now - How many people believe John McCain can substantially remember anything from eight years ago, much less an obvious, somewhat typical, seat-of-the-pants answer the "maverick" gave?

Can we see a show of hands?

It's not only the shameless pandering, but also the inability to admit the change.

I mean, if he just said, "I thought about it a lot and changed my mind," then it would be no problem. However, he like all the other people he claims to be different from, pretend like it was always what they believed.

Frankly I want my leaders to flip-flop. I want them to adjust to what they've learned and how things have changed. Our emphasis on not flip-flopping is frankly dangerous, as can be evidently seen by GW.

but then the attacks on opponents who flip flop. hypocrisy just about bothers me more than anything else.

Thank you for those last two paragraphs. I think they are very important when looking at the evolution of a politician's views. I am happy to see it when politicians (or anyone for that matter) are able to really examine their positions and alter them if new information or situations would make it proper to do so. That's much better than the current administration that sticks to a position so stubbornly no matter what new things come up. However, if a politician changes a position simply to pander, that is just as bad as sticking to a position out of stubbornness or unwillingness to examine him/herself.

a democratic convention where the attendees would be sporting purple bandaids (Perhaps prison stripes...he did get shot down after all) and waving sandals in the air while chanting "flip-flop, flip-flop"?

I can't either. Despite continuing shenagins in the endless primary season, it's still nice to hang out with grown ups.

In 2000, McCain was for Rogue State Roll-Up. Then W. Bush tried to roll up the rogue state of Iraq. And now, McCain wants to continue trying to roll up Iraq, but he seems hesitant to try to roll up anybody else.

So, what are you criticizing, other than McCain's desire to stay in Iraq?

"I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments."

Like the Mujahedeen, only...no, exactly like the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Don't forget, it's the long-standing right-wing belief that if you think about an issue enough to have your position change, you're doing something wrong. It's the reason that the Iraq war justification has changed constantly since the months leading up to it: the gut reaction of a great guy like GW to invade and occupy a nondescript country run by a generic despot couldn't possibly have been wrong. The problem is that the left doesn't throw this kind of thing back in mass quantities and get the bobbleheads passing for media these days to start repeating "flip-flop" like a new age mantra.

That having been said, I'd be happy if our politicians scrutinized their own record, examined programs and bills they've championed for efficacy, did a little more study of not just theirs but other people's attempts at governance, and showed that they were learning from both failures and successes. Unfortunately, our political discourse excludes the possibility of evaluation. Instead, election coverage has devolved into the talking-heads equivalent of "Jerry Springer".

As for McCain, the Mujahadeen comment pretty much sums it up: there's ample evidence that foreign-funded insurgency doesn't generate democratic states. That was as true in 2000 as it is today, and our foray into Iraq has shown that even another decade of technological advance didn't help. It shows a lack of critical thinking skills for McCain to have said it then and an equal lack of respect for the electorate to assert that his position hasn't changed when he clearly states it has.

Count me as another reader who is still grateful for Steve Benen's continued presence here. It feels like the old Salon again...

As for that list, didn't McCain also reverse his position on expanding the GI bill?

Not to be too nit-picky, but that seems like an important one to flip-flop on, especially for someone who relies so much on his military service, and who not only received his education at taxpayer's expense at the Naval Academy, but who has always been a beneficiary of medical coverage at taxpaper's expense.

...especially if he wants to "grow" the military.

Its so interesting to see him veering left and trying to use leftist *catch phrases* to attract indies (like me) and moderates and maybe even SOME dems.

I'd like to create a *decoding game* that can be used online and by 527s in the general.

For example, recently he said (in response to the mortgage crisis):

"...we want to preserve the American dream of home ownership and take steps to keep deserving Americans in their homes..." (paraphrased except the part about "DESERVING" which he said like four times in his speech)

(decoded: YOU aren't deserving. YOU couldn't afford THAT home. You had no right to the American dream. And anyway, you didn't put enough money down and you don't have enough money in savings. Everyone knows ARMs are for losers, like YOU. You should have known better)

or today when he said (in response to the health care crisis):

"...I will work to reduce health care costs and insist that those people who CAN afford to pay for their prescriptions pay for their own prescriptions instead of the hard working, American taxpayer footing the bill."

(decoded: All 16 people in the US who CAN afford their prescriptions, like Warren Buffet (he actually used his name!) should pay for their own prescriptions. The other 300 million folks, well, who knows? I also found it interesting that he mixed health insurance with medicare issues. Duh. He also in the same statement mentioned that hard-working Americans should be able to carry their insurance WITH them from job to job. Someone ought to tell him that 1) 1/6 of hard-working Americans DONT have it so they CANT take it with them, not to mention the underinsured; 2) the 80% of small businesses in the US who make up the majority of the jobs in the US cant afford to offer it to their employees and 3) the big corporations that COULD afford it opt to hire workers outside of the US market so they don't have to pay it. and 4) we are LOSING jobs so its not a given you will HAVE a job to take it to, even if you could.

Geez. Talk about OUT OF TOUCH.

Any creative types out there? We could make up something that could be used against McCain in the general and decode his slick left sounding language for members of our party (or others) who have a propensity not to THINK or LISTEN REALLY CAREFULLY.

Anyone?