Floppity, Floppity, change, change. Such a fraud. Some think he won Iowa by coming out then for public financing.

David Brooks has it about right here The Two Obamas.

I don't want to accuse David Brooks of plagiarizing my insights to Obama, but all you have to do, to see for yourself, is go my post "Oprah, Obama Will Disappoint You". http://the-macedonian-tendency.blogs...point-you.html
................... David Brooks, The Two Obama's, New York Times,June 20, 2008 "Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes." ------------------
I noticed that Obama has set up a site to debunk rumors. As some of you know, I am spreading this information. Is it Rumor or Truth ... You be the Judge. Google: Obama Macedonia Greek Racism Barack Obama Supports Greek Racism Against Its Ethnic Macedonian Minority - Rumor or Truth? Barack Obama has adopted the Greek position on the Macedonian Greek dispute. - Rumor or Truth? The Greek position is that the 50,000 strong "slavophone" minority is bilingual, speaking a patois/idiom/ which is not a "real" language. Slavophones, according to Greece, have no language, no culture (sounds like you know what)and no separate ethnic identity from

Seems to me that the crux of Lowry's point here (that you can't paint McCain as a "Flip-Flopper", but that "Panderer" will stick better) is a distinction without a difference. Given that McCain's persona is that of a Maverick who doesn't cozy up to the Right Wing, Pandering = Flip-Flopping. I mean, why would politicians even engage in the dicey business Flip-Floppery if not to reap the benefits of Pandering?

Quoting Joel_Cairo: Seems to me that the crux of Lowry's point here (that you can't paint McCain as a "Flip-Flopper", but that "Panderer" will stick better) is a distinction without a difference. Given that McCain's persona is that of a Maverick who doesn't cozy up to the Right Wing, Pandering = Flip-Flopping. I mean, why would politicians even engage in the dicey business Flip-Floppery if not to reap the benefits of Pandering?

As for what the actions amount to, especially in McCain's case, I mostly agree. However, I think a case could be made that flip-flopping implies a full 180° turn, whereas pandering implies a less radical change. Pandering also often has a sense of being temporary, or more localized, or a more one-off type of thing; e.g., what you emphasize when speaking to one group versus another, or a bone you toss some group that contrasts with your usual position, which you usually revert to afterward. Flip-flopping usually means, to me at least, a clearly and consistently stated position that is at odds with an earlier position, just as clearly and consistently stated. There's another aspect to this, too. Due to the success of the flip-flopper tag as applied to John Kerry, it's clear

Quoting bjkeefe: There's another aspect to this, too. Due to the success of the flip-flopper tag as applied to John Kerry, it's clear that Lowry is worried about the power of this if it sticks to McCain. The underlying tone when he tries to relabel McCain's flip flops as pandering is, "All politicians pander to some degree, especially if they've been in Congress for a while."

A very good point. I think this semantic distinction is pretty useful for anti-McCain messaging, though, as Lowry has neatly articulates a way to down two swing-voting birds with one stone: To voters with a strong antipathy toward Bush & the Far Right, you use the McSame/Panderer epithet, while to those less stringently anti-Bush (those people who lament about polarization and bickering) you hit McCain at a more fundamental level by throwing into question his vaunted stalwartness and capacity for sustained commitment.

Quoting Joel_Cairo: A very good point. I think this semantic distinction is pretty useful for anti-McCain messaging, though, as Lowry has neatly articulates a way to down two swing-voting birds with one stone: To voters with a strong antipathy toward Bush & the Far Right, you use the McSame/Panderer epithet, while to those less stringently anti-Bush (those people who lament about polarization and bickering) you hit McCain at a more fundamental level by throwing into question his vaunted stalwartness and capacity for sustained commitment.

This might work, although I have my doubts as to how many it will work upon. I am inclined to agree with the conventional wisdom that says that for most voters, this year's election will amount to an up or down vote on Obama. I think most people who favor McCain, especially because of his image, are not going to be swayed by attempts to show how he has changed his positions on various issues. Political junkies, maybe. Most people? I expect they'll either dismiss such things or not weight them heavily. Unless, of course, the flip-flopper tag becomes as sticky as it was for Kerry. However, it's hard to see how this could happen. The Dems/left in general

Just to expand the case for nuclear power, don't forget that once you have an industry for nuclear power, you get R&D--which means not (just?) the dream that is fusion but, much more practically, thorium. As for the danger, does it seem to anyone else that in the 9/11 world the idea that our civilization requires constant maintenance in order to avert disaster isn't as fearfully unfamiliar as it used to be? Just a thought.

I think a case could be made that flip-flopping implies a full 180° turn, whereas pandering implies a less radical change. Pandering also often has a sense of being temporary, or more localized, or a more one-off type of thing; e.g., what you emphasize when speaking to one group versus another, or a bone you toss some group that contrasts with your usual position, which you usually revert to afterward. Flip-flopping usually means, to me at least, a clearly and consistently stated position that is at odds with an earlier position, just as clearly and consistently stated.
There's another aspect to this, too. Due to the success of the flip-flopper tag as applied to John Kerry, it's clear that Lowry is worried about the power of this if it sticks to McCain.

You could also hit the trifecta: simultaneous flip-flop, pander and sticking a nasty label on the other dude. This was almost achieved by Barack Obama at the AIPAC conference. He flipped on opposing the occupation (which includes East J-lem); he pandered to Likudniks Abroad (AIPAC), but he failed to smear his opponent with a sticky label. The advantage is the double pander and flip is

...It would be wonderful to see these two discussing not the horse race but substantive matters. They're both bright, respectful, and courteous. Bring them back to talk about issues... I'll second that. Itzik Basman

Quoting David Edenden: I don't want to accuse David Brooks of plagiarizing my insights to Obama, but all you have to do, to see for yourself, is go my post "Oprah, Obama Will Disappoint You".

Brooks is, after all, the oracle of objective insight! So which one of you wingnuts (supposedly not backing Mccain) is going to man or woman up and admit they sent the Obama camp some cash 'cause the Clinton's scare the piss out of you? Confession is cathartic people! FYI I think it would be sweet to watch Mccain try to justify the occupation when the "surge" backfires. But I have to go Obama, and pray he gets our people out before hand.

PS the "floppity" thing is SO Rove-four-years-ago. You corporate ass-kissers have to ask yourselves: what would Carl do today? He was always one step slimier than the competition. You have to set aside your delusions of righteousness, in order to have the proper mindset. You people are thinking like losers.

Quoting Whatfur: Floppity, Floppity, change, change.

Such a fraud. Some think he won Iowa by coming out then for public financing.

Dude, you might not want to call attention to campaign financing, after the guy you say is not your-dog-in-this-hunt supposedly "fixed" that problem years ago. If you really think that was a big issue on the primary trail, you are more of a Jethro than I thought you were. In case you ignored my PS over there---->
I (dis?)respectfully resubmit for your (dis?)approval: PS the "floppity" thing is SO Rove-four-years-ago. You corporate ass-kissers have to ask yourselves: what would Carl do today? He was always one step slimier than the competition. You have to set aside your delusions of righteousness, in order to have the proper mindset. You people are thinking like losers.

Quoting Whatfur:
Such a fraud.

Here's a quote from Bob Costas, famed sportscaster from the liberal media..you know, NBC (General Electric), ABC (Disney): "I think most Americans expect and accept therefore, a certain level of dishonesty or corruption, If it were counterbalanced by a healthy amount of competence, they’d be happy." You are familiar with the term? (competence) Hint: he's talking about YOUR "boys of summer". not the other team. I know, I know, you just sell the sno-cones.

Quoting handle: FYI I think it would be sweet to watch Mccain try to justify the occupation when the "surge" backfires. But I have to go Obama, and pray he gets our people out before hand.

It will bee even more fun to watch Senator Obama throw the anti-war crowd under the bus; just as he has done everyone else that has hindered his possible ascension. Why is it that the left has been essentially silent about this just passed funding for Iraq. No more grandstanding blather about withdrawal time table, no more talk of benchmarks just acquiescence and a fairly wide margin of victory 268/155/12.

Quoting piscivorous: It will bee even more fun to watch Senator Obama throw the anti-war crowd under the bus; just as he has done everyone else that has hindered his possible ascension. Why is it that the left has been essentially silent about this just passed funding for Iraq. No more grandstanding blather about withdrawal time table, no more talk of benchmarks just acquiescence and a fairly wide margin of victory 268/155/12.

uh, cause he still makes Mcfossil look like LBJ? I'm personally digging it 'cause I'm surrounded by clueless hippies who told me it didn't matter who was prez back in '99. Then they shove this guy down my throat. Every step he takes toward the middle is another nail in the neocon coffin, and I despise extremism.
I offer a redundancy from a response to whatfur over there<-----: Here's a quote from Bob Costas, famed sportscaster from the liberal media..you know, NBC (General Electric), ABC (Disney): "I think most Americans expect and accept therefore, a certain level of dishonesty or corruption, If it were counterbalanced by a healthy amount of competence, they’d be happy."

wait, new funding for Iraq? It's going to cost a fortune to get all our crap back out of there isn't it?

I believe you used that one already and I'm not quite sure Mr Costas speaks for any one other than the elites.

Quoting piscivorous: I believe you used that one already and I'm not quite sure Mr Costas speaks for any one other than the elites.

Typical, ignore the message and shoot the messenger. You guys really need to adjust your strategy, the elite thing is dead! It was just code for "uppity" when used on Obama anyway. You already have the racist vote, it's time to SOMEHOW distance yourself from your hero, and your delusional ideologies, even if it hurts. PS Elite sports fans? Nice try...

No more grandstanding blather about withdrawal time table, no more talk of benchmarks just acquiescence and a fairly wide margin of victory 268/155/12.

That is not really a wide margin for Dems. on the ground to get upset about. Assuming the 155 were Dems, that represents 66% of Dems. in Congress. Two out of three voted for no funding -- a substantial majority.

Quoting piscivorous: I believe you used that one already

Hence my offering it as a redundancy. I'm serious, you guys are just phoning it in. You need to READ before responding or your pretension to intellect goes right down the toidy.

Quoting Wonderment: That is not really a wide margin for Dems. on the ground to get upset about.

Assuming the 155 were Dems, that represents 66% of Dems. in Congress. Two out of three voted for no funding -- a substantial majority.

Wonderperson! yeeeaaaah!!
Sorry, I just like how that sounds like a superhero name.. never mind...

Hmm... they both seem good for the role-- now, if only the US would allow two presidents ... Anyway, while we're not voting yet, here's a little message from me:
VOTE WISELY! And an advanced Happy Independence Day!