Column: New Obama Far More Suited For Presidency

This story was written by Stuart Baimel, The Stanford Daily

Were still in the campaigns silly season, and the silly talk has focused on Sen. Barack Obamas supposed flip-flopping. Political cartoonists have had a field day, with cartoon after cartoon using easy metaphors to unleash a scathing critique of Obamas so-called pandering and flip-flopping.

Obama predictably looks bad, but somehow John McCain looks like a principled saint in all of this. Remembering the damaged charges against John Kerry in 2004, the Obama camp has tried their best to clamp down on the accusations before they get out of hand.

Charges of flip-flopping emerge mostly from Obamas very public reversal on campaign finance and his repositioning on the Iraq question. He previously pledged to accept public funding for the general election (which limits his spending), but later backed out of the pledge. Fair enough. John McCain charged that he was a hypocrite, and pledged to remain within spending limits. Nevermind that McCain is funneling most of his campaign funds through the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has no limits on donations, meaning he can raise much more per donor than Obama and spend unlimited amounts of money. McCain is violating the spirit of the campaign-finance law that bears his name, if not the letter. Obama, somehow, is the one who bears the vast majority of the criticism.

The Iraq issue is Obamas other big problem. His mistake was to commit to an ironclad 16-month withdrawal plan during the primaries, which thrilled the partys left-wing activists. But even Obama has to face the fact that the war is going much better than it was a year ago, and a complete withdrawal less than two years from now is unfeasible. A commander-in-chief willing to change his mind is a rare and precious thing; witness the obstinacy of LBJ and George W. Bush, and how unsuccessful they were in leading a war effort. John McCain, for his part, has said recently that most troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. McCains recent policy changes on the Iraq War have not been less significant than Obamas.

How John McCain has managed to escape charges of flip-flopping is astounding, which suggests a double standard for Democrats and Republicans. Since his previous presidential run in 2000, he has completely reversed positions at least 61 times according to the political Web site The Carpetbagger Report. He once opposed Bushs tax cuts; now he supports them. He once argued that waterboarding was torture; now he doesnt. McCain once opposed Jim Webbs GI Bill expansion; he later took credit for its passage. Once a deficit hawk, he proposes to cut domestic spending by $690 million without raising taxes (which will triple the deficit). Not only has McCain reversed his positions, but hes been dishonest and disingenuous in doing so, as well as indignant and self-righteous whenever reporters discuss his reversals.

We see this double standard for Democrats and Republicans over and over again. George W. Bush ran as an evangelical in the 2000 primaries, reversed course and ran as a compassionate conservative in the general election. McCains very public pandering to conservatives is regarded as a good thing, necessary to win. On the other hand, John Kerrys move to the center, which was borne more out of a failure to communicate effectively, rather than policy changes, deeply damaged his presidential campaign. As soon as Obama makes some minor policy changes, commentators jump on him and exaggerate the reversals, while McCain skates by. Republicans are allowed to pander and Democrats are not.

To be honest, I like this new Obama more than the old one. The version of Obama we saw in the primaries was resolutely liberal, even daring to challenge NAFTA, which has been a boon for the American economy. This new, more thoughtful Obama is far more suied to be president than the markedly non-innovative one during the primaries.