Candidates Think Flip-Flopping is the Only Way to Win Elections

No BLACKS in the WHITE House

In the end what it boils down to is a choice of McCain, with the guarantee of more Bush-Cheney policies and more of the same focus on Special Interests, or Obama, with no guarantee but the promise of change and representation for all of the people. A chance for change, even without guarantees, seems attractive.

So Dr. No aka Hussein Obama doesn't take $$$ from lobbiests. Hmmm...what's this.......

Obama's 14 Bundlers

Timothy M. Broas of Maryland, Winston & Strawn, last lobby report 2000; raised more than $100,000.

Frank Clark of Illinois, Commonwealth Edison, last lobby report 2000; raised more than $200,000.

Howard W. Gutman of Maryland, Williams & Connolly, last lobby report 1999; raised more than $200,000.

Scott Harris of Washington, D.C., Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, last lobby report 2006; raised more than $200,000.

Allan J. Katz of Florida, Akerman Senterfitt, last lobby report 2004; raised more than $200,000. (Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, Tallahassee City Commissioner)

William T. Lake of Washington, D.C., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, last lobby report 2001; raised at least $50,000.

Robert S. Litt of Maryland, Arnold & Porter, last lobby report 2002; amount raised not listed.

Kenneth G. Lore of Washington, D.D., Bingham McCutchen, last lobby report 2001; raised at least $50,000.

Thomas J. Perrelli of Virginia, Jenner and Block, last lobby report 2002; raised more than $200,000.

Thomas A. Reed of Virginia, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, last lobby report 2006; raised more than $200,000.

Paul N. Roth of New York, Schulte Roth & Zabel, last lobby report 2005; raised at least $50,000.

Alan Solomont of Massachusetts, Solomont Bailis Ventures, last lobby report 2006; raised more than $200,000.

Robert M. Sussman of Washington, D.C., Latham & Watkins, last lobby report 2006; raised at least $50,000. (2004 Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) co-chair)

Tom E. Wheeler of Washington, D.C., Core Capital Partners, last lobby report 2003; raised more than $200,000.

NOBAMA!!!

Mc Cain't, Mc Can't, Mc C*nt.

Why have we come to a place where changing one's mind on the basis of evidence is called "flip-flopping"? I would like a president who can change his/her mind on the basis of evidence. We now have a president who clings to his mistaken ideas despite all evidence and look where it has led us. Do we want 4 more years of this type of inflexibility?

An actual good article and somewhat unbiased look at both candidate....didn't know newsweek had it in them.
Although I disagree with the Energy part of the article...

Emil Jones...there's a name that could liven things up! Like to to hear the flip on this one.

if flip flop stands for change i think its fine.change is the one truth all things must change.to all the lame brains that want to keep things the same its no natrul all things must change.

There is only one person flip-flopping on the issues. John McCain. Lets make the right decision. Vote for Obama.

I don't think most people have a good idea of where the "flip-flops" have been. Depending on the bias, people are distorting messages all over the place. Obama's had one of the most consistent stands on gun control that I've seen.
1) He recognises the individuals right to own a gun.
2) He also recognizes governments rights to control guns, and say maybe fully automatic weapons don't belong, and perhaps hand guns should require permits/registration.

Yet depending on the day, Fox News is saying he's either saying he's anti-gun or he's pro-gun. The truth is he's neither or both depending on the views of the individual looking at him. If you believe all guns should be banned, he seem's pro-gun. If you're the NRA, he seem's anti-gun. But when you say either, it's incorrect.

Yet he hasn't changed his stance overall. So who's really flip-flopping? I'd argue that it's the media trying to distort his position that's the problem. You've got 3 or more different postitions floating around yet only one of them is his.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but perhaps there should be consequences when people misrepresent a candidate's position in public. Freedom of speech was so that we can say what we want, but when we say it, it comes from us. When you get somebody saying what they want, but then trying to assign ownership to somebody else, isn't that opening you up for slander if you lie? The next question will be what about damages, but isn't damage being done to the system? Voters are really getting confused, and that can't be good for the process. Some people say well everybody tries to mislead voters. That's politics.

I think that's a sell out, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one.

If the whole idea of flip flopping is to improve one's poll numbers, doesn't that belittle newsweeks claim of a 15% point lead over McCain? Rasmussen's numbers are radically different. id rasmussen to be believed/ are they reliable or just picked out of the air/ why should we believe rasmussen over Newsweek/