Is this allowed? Is he allowed to talk about this stuff? Washington Post - Pretzel Logic

Barack Obama is under hostile fire for changing his position on the D.C. gun ban.

Oh, I’m sorry. He didn’t change his position, apparently. He reworded a clumsy statement.

That, at least, is what his campaign is saying. The same campaign that tried to spin his flip-flop in rejecting public financing as embracing the spirit of reform, if not the actual position he had once promised to embrace.

Is this becoming a pattern? Wouldn’t it be better for Obama to say he had thought more about such-and-such an issue and simply changed his mind? Is that verboten in American politics? Is it better to engage in linguistic pretzel-twisting in an effort to prove that you didn’t change your mind?

Doesn’t Howard realize that discussing Obama’s consistently changing positions - otherwise known as triangulating and pandering - is a distraction from the deep, meaningful, devotional, orgasmic theme of Hope and Change?

Very interestingly, Kurtz even dives into the blogosphere, mentioning Captain Ed, Red State, and Flopping Aces. He even takes a little jump in to the portosphere, but found little mention of the latest Obama flip flop. Should I teach him how to do a good dumpster dive?