Perhaps it's because Obama seemed like a breath of fresh air that it comes as a shock, to supporters and non-partisan observers alike that, when he talked about change, he was really talking about his own positions.
Obama favored public financing of his campaign. Until he raised so much money that he opposed it.
He opposed indemnification of telecommunication companies from civil suits for participating in the government's warrantless wiretap program. Until he changed his mind.
He favored gun control until the Supreme Court struck down Washington, DC's restrictive ordinance.
And he favored an early withdrawal from Iraq, but says now he may re-evaluate that after meeting with the generals there.
This was the topic of today's News Talk Online on Paltalk.com.
But many in my audience pointed out to me that all politicians change their positions in the interest of political expediency. The positions that got Obama nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate, they note, are not the positions that would get him elected.
So he had no choice, some argued, but to change his position. Because, of course, the reason one runs for office is to get elected.
But, wouldn't it be refreshing if for once, when we entered our respective voting booths, we actually knew where the candidates really stood on the issues before we voted?
Link to this comment:
All Comments (0)