Ruth Marcus makes some good points here:
Flip-flops certainly can be relevant. Continually shifting positions can indicate a willingness to elevate political expediency over principle. Mitt Romney’s extreme makeover raised legitimate questions about what he truly believed, other than that Mitt Romney should be president.
But the trouble with flip-flop frenzy is that it tends to treat every shift– every, pardon the term, nuance– as a one-size-fits all transgression. We in the media risk becoming the enablers of inanity by acting as if all flip-flops are creaed equal, and equally bad…
Indeed, some flip-flops might even be evidence of open-mindedness– not a bad attribute in a president, as the past eight years have taught. The downside to flip-flop politics is making politicians reluctant to change course lest they be exposed to accusations of spinelessness…
So let’s not flip out too much about flip-flops. Abraham Lincoln, if he were running today, would doubtless be lambasted as the flip-flopper in chief. After all, Lincoln was against forcing the states to abolish slavery before he was for it.
Interesting column on NYT-Fox doctored photos flap.
John Podesta to run Obama’s transition if elected?
In NYT, Serge Kovaleski examines Brack Obama’s years as an community organizer.
Never ever check your laptop when you get to the airport.