Wonder what flip-flop he’s talking about (there’s been quite a few lately :-)? The one that the left cares about the most: public financing:

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: Judy, Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test.
I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money — the Republicans don’t have so much more money. He’s raised three times as much as John McCain has.
He has every possible committee, except Republican National Committee, Democrats at the Senate level, congressional level have this lopsided edge over Republicans. They spent three times as much, did Democratic leaning 527s, in the last election as did Republicans.
So what Obama didn’t admit was, up until February of this year, when he told Tim Russert that not only would he aggressively seek an agreement on public financing, that he personally would sit down with John McCain and work it out, then, all of a sudden, they realized that all these small contributions were coming in and he was going to have a financial advantage in the fall against the Republican, and they grabbed it.

Obama’s raking in tons of money, why should he let principle stand in his way? Even if it’s something that he “strongly supports” (here’s a link, for those of you who want proof that Obama said it, to Hewitt’s show where he plays audio of Obama’s comments on public financing)

DAVID BROOKS, columnist, New York Times: It would have at least been honest, as opposed to sort of operatic, which that video was. He treated it as if some noble decision to finalize democracy. It was ludicrous.
I do think it’s the low point of the Obama candidacy, and I think it for this reason. His entire career he has put political reform at the center of it. In the Illinois legislature, in the Senate, political reform has been the essence of who he has been. And so for him to betray this, to sell out this issue, what won’t he sell out?

Good question, David Brooks but I suspect the answer is pretty easy: affirmative action and abortion.
Can’t say I’m outraged over this flip-flop. I’m actually relieved. I’d rather my tax dollars go to something more useful than Obama’s campaign, it’s bad enough McCain’s getting them 🙂
(via)