Sure looks like it to me. And, let me catch my breath that this comes from the Washington Post. The WaPo lists 5 each from Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.
For example . . .
Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.
NAFTA In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that “on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America.” She now says she has “long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA” and advocates a “time out” from similar trade agreements.
Interesting that the title of the piece is ‘Top Obama Flip-Flops’ when there are five each on Obama and Clinton. So who ever accused the WaPo of being fair and balanced anyway?
related links: Top Obama Flip-Flops | Democrats Equally Adept at Shifting Positions
h/t Hip Hop Republican
While watching the newscasts today of the al-Sadr instigated demonstrations in Iraq, demonstrations against U.S. and coalition forces, here is the one news item the media is sure to miss. Gen. Petraeus’ letter to the Iraqi people upon the 4th anniversary of the fall of Saddam’s regime. It’s also time to review the 7 reasons (not 1) that we went into Iraq in the first place.
To the Iraqi People:
Monday, April 9, 2007 will mark the 4th anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s regime.Â For many in Iraq and around the world, it will be a time for reflection on the early days after liberation in 2003 and on what has transpired since then. Continue reading General’s Letter To The Iraqi People
Has ‘Let’s Roll’ morphed into Let’s Roll Over? That’s what it seems like when you examine the democrats’ view of foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Iraqi front in the war on terror. For more on this apparent suicide in the making, visit Michelle Malkin’s post. Although Michelle’s post is regarding the 15 British troops who were taken hostage, the same can be said of some in the democrat party today. Let’s Roll Over and Cut & Run, there’s not a hair’s difference between them.
Meet Marc Danziger, a liberal democrat who wants to win the war, not run from it. He also believes that the war in Iraq is just one front in the overall global war on terror. And he has a plan to support any and all efforts to that end. He has started The Victory PAC.
For a perspective you haven’t heard from another liberal, with the exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct), here’s where Marc is coming from.
I’m a liberal Democrat (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-progressive taxation, pro-equal rights, pro-environmental regulation, pro-public schools) who supported and supports the war in Iraq. As I tell my liberal friends “Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?”
I’ve been waiting for four years for the White House to start really explaining the war to the American people, and to do anything sensible at all to maintain the political capital necessary to keep America in the fight – to keep us from withdrawing because the war is too messy, or too long, or just plain makes us feel bad.
Marc is a liberal who knows who the real enemy is, and its not George Bush.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the heads up on Victory PAC