I just read somewhere that the Dems are planning on portraying Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper. Maybe they should look more closely at their own front-runner:

"Hillary Clinton Ruled Out Using Nuclear Weapons in 2006, but Criticized Barack Obama for Doing So in 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007

NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292782,00.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Oops -- that should take her off the high horse. Combine that with the comment she made in the debate that "you should not always say everything you think when you are running for president" -- and Obama may be able to gain a little ground on her.

Maybe, like Romney, she simply changed her mind.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Anyone can change their mind. The mark of a flip-flopper is to change it back. Hillary's mind is all over the map depending on who she's trying to please at the moment.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

But Bush's whole presidency been the actual flip-flop tour. Look how he said he was going to get Osama but instead he flip-flopped and went to get who he wanted to get instead and you all know the rest of the story as like how he flip-flopped on all the excuses on why he made the war.

Seriously, Jeremiah, I don't think you should vote for Bush in 2008.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I didn't vote for him in 2000, 2004 and sure as hell won't be voting for him in 2008 because FORTUNATELY [waiting for all the clapping all over the country to die down} he is not able to buy 4 more years in the White House

How did she change it back? She said no nukes, now she says nukes. That's one change. As Iran is no more a threat now than it was then, I'm not sure why she changed her mind, but it was changed only once.

As an aside, I can see changing one's mind as facts change. That is not the case here, but one is certainly allowed to do that.

Likely true. That's not exactly new for politicians. On the other side it's pretty easy to notice how much more conservative Romney is now that he's not running for office in Massachusetts. He sees a space among the RR he can fill and has moved right into it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

What's hilarious (Hillaryous) is that the example in which Obama ruled it out made more sense. It's ridiculous to nuke areas full of innocent civilians to go after a mobile nonstate enemy... for the exact same reason why it's stupid to start a union in a company specializing in intangibles.
Iran is the kind of enemy you want to keep nukes on the table for (though obviously never use unless nukes are used by them or threatened by them).
Nukes are not effective for negotiating with terrorists, but only state actors (unless you ask that moron Tancredo who believes that bombing holy sites is a great diplomatic tool- but somehow Obama's the "inexperienced and naive one").

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

seems appropriate to place it in this flip-flop thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H...forum%5Fid%3D4

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]