Obama's Change

Barack Obama talks constantly of hope and change. While pinning him down on an exact definition of both the hope part and the change part is a bit like nailing water to the wall, we can at least make some solid guesses based on things like his voting record and previous statements. Without further ado, here's a good guess at the kind of change Obama stands for:

The Wall Street Journal put out a devastating common sense piece by Karl Rove yesterday about this subject, as well. Rove points out that it's okay for candidates to change positions on important issues because voters do, too. The key thing that matters to voters is why the candidate changed position: have the facts changed? does the candidate admit to the change? is the change reasonable, or calculating?

First, he addresses McCain's 'flip-flops':

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it.

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes.

Barack Obama is another story entirely:

Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

But not only does he appear to be changing positions based on the audience or simple expediency rather than a logical reason, he won't even admit the changes:

Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Rove again points out the interview I mentioned recently where Obama said that if he knew in 2007 what he knows now about the surge, he still would not have supported it for purely political reasons.

Rove concludes that Obama runs the serious risk of appearing to the American voters as an opportunistic, expediency-driven politician rather than an inspiring leader, and that could lead to the question of whether or not he is the change they want.

This is dead on, and the numbers prove it. Obama's current trip through the Middle East was the MSM's major effort to present him as a tough, capable leader, and they've done their best to spin him as such. But, for all of their efforts -- which have been significant, mind you -- he is not seeing any gain in the polls, while more than half (55%) view Obama as a risky choice for President. Even more disturbing for Obama is the fact that McCain is actually gaining ground in some key swing states.

Obama has changed so many times on so many issues that not even the adoring coverage of the MSM can completely hide it forever, and the American people are starting to catch on. It's going to be tough for him to maintain the facade for another four long months, but if he doesn't, McCain has a very realistic chance in November.

Change? Without a doubt. The only question is: what change, exactly?

There's my two cents.