...He's certainly trying hard once again to alienate one of our allies in Latin America, taking a knee-jerk anti-Bush stance on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. On the plus side, he'll probably change this position too when it becomes politically convenient. Strangely, Obama polls well among Latinos. (Even more strange, he polls well among people who want less expensive gasoline, even though he promises more expensive gasoline, but that's a separate issue.) Only time will tell whether most voters will see through the facade before November.

How many news items need to begin "Obama Shifts on..." before the charge that he's a flip-flopping opportunist really sticks?

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

It almost starts to look like a parody. He's going to disagree with every one of his former positions by November at this rate. Is this what he's meant all along when he's talked about being the candidate of change?

Others:
Hot Air
Commentary

Former Democratic Party presidential candidate and current Obama campaign flack Gen. Wesley Clark supports chickenhawk warmonger Barack Obama, who never served a day in the military, by attacking John McCain's military record and supposed lack of executive experience.

Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him "untested and untried" on CBS' "Face the Nation." And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain's military service.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded - that wasn't a wartime squadron," Clark said.

Now that's audacity.

First of all, take note, all you who have proudly served in the military outside of wartime - that experience no longer counts.

How this line helps Obama, who has no military or executive experience at all, is a mystery. But we encourage the Obama campaign to continue with it. By all means, compare your military credentials and experience to Senator McCain's every day until November.

Remember way back in 2004, when John Kerry's few months in Vietnam were so critical to his presidential qualifications? Well, by this point, especially after the last few weeks of the Obama campaign, no one is going to accuse the Democrats of being sticklers for consistency.

Update: Illustrating the Democrats' shifting standards, we found this quote from DNC Chairman Howard Dean, via a helpful commenter at Blackfive:

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Another Update: Some helpful background on McCain's non-executive experience from The Weekly Standard.

And more from Townhall and Michelle Malkin.

Via Townhall, Reuters reports Obama claims to be against same-sex marriage, but also against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or any other effort to defend the traditional definition of marriage:

She [Michelle Obama] said he [Barack Obama] supported a complete repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which only recognizes marriages between men and women and upholds states' rights not to honor same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. He also opposes a "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the U.S. military and was against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, she added.

He supports full family and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples and believes the federal government should not stand in the way of states that opt for domestic partnerships, civil unions or civil marriage, she said. The Illinois senator opposes same-sex marriage.

But that last sentence is ridiculous, totally contradicting all the previous content of the story. He does not oppose same-sex marriage. It's obviously a lie to say he opposes same-sex marriage. He might say he opposes it because his view isn't politically popular, but that's just a matter of cowardice and dishonesty. Barack Obama favors the radical redefinition of marriage. He should just be honest and say so.

UPDATE 07.01.08: More on Obama's support for same-sex marriage.

...just wait a little while and he's sure to change:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

Yeah, obviously. Nice move, now Obama can tailor his eventual position on the subject to the Supreme Court ruling after it's released.

From The Campaign Spot: "All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."

UPDATE: Excellent news - the Supreme Court has upheld the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms in the United States. The Constitution won by a single vote.

Barack Obama, in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus (talk about playing the race card), discussing reaching out to primary supporters of Hillary Clinton:

"If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."

Really? Does Obama really believe all women think alike on every issue?

All women want to ignore the success of the surge and prefer surrender and defeat in Iraq?

All women support abortion on demand at any time for any reason?

All women support more socialist economic policies, massive tax increases on their families, and more draconian regulation of their lives and businesses?

All women support a ban on increased U.S. energy production and confiscation of private energy company profits, which will drive up the price they pay for gasoline and other energy products?

All women support trapping their kids in failing public schools?

All women support the Democrats' efforts to make it harder to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorist communications?

All women support the appointment of activist judges who will impose radical cultural changes on Americans without regard to the democratically expressed will of the people or the clear written text of the Constitution?

We are not a woman, but if we were, we'd find the senator's rank stereotyping offensive.

Barack Obama, appearing on CBS' 60 Minutes in February 2007:

Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? "No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace," Obama tells Kroft.

Barack Obama today at a fundraiser in Florida, playing the race card, and preemptively playing the victim:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

He's starting to sound a bit like his racist pastor or Pfleger Flav there. So much for being a "post-racial" candidate who's going to bring Americans together. And we're only a couple of weeks into the general.

And of course the Democrats - the planet is in crisis and only massive tax increases and draconian regulations can save us, you're only one paycheck away from losing your job, your house, and your health insurance in the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, and only massive tax increases and draconian regulations can save you, America is a racist country, the Evil Bu$hCo Regime is trampling the Constitution and taking away all our rights.... - would never play the politics of fear.

Update: CNN has audio and some discussion from The Situation Room.

More:
Hot Air
Townhall

From the Washington Post (via WSJ.com):

The foreign minister [Hoshyar Zebari of Iraq] said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

So if you're on the left and favor surrender and retreat from Iraq, or you're a conservative and favor victory, how can you have any real confidence in Obama's position(s) on the war at this point?

From CNNmoney.com (also via WSJ.com):

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

So whether you're a private-enterprise loathing Marxist or a believer in American free markets, how can you have any real confidence in Obama's position(s) on free trade or the economy at this point?

And of course there's Obama's recent decision to walk away from his pledge to accept public financing for the general election:

In a widely expected move that will give Democrat Barack Obama a huge cash advantage over Republican John McCain, Obama announced Thursday morning that he will be the first modern presidential candidate to decline public financing in a general election.

Obama’s decision represents a break from the strong signals he sent last year about his commitment to the public financing program. It means his campaign, which has shattered fundraising records, won’t accept the federal system’s $84 million in taxpayer money, but also won’t be subject to its $84 million spending limit.

As a pattern emerges, the question arises for any voter (anyone who isn't going to vote for the Democrat no matter what he says): how can you now trust what Senator Obama says on any issue? Whether it's the war, the economy, taxes, Social Security, health care, anything at all - with this pattern of saying contradictory things about so many of the major issues of the campaign, depending on the audience, how can you possibly trust that he's actually going to deliver on anything you want?

We suspect Mr Obama will try to take the country as far to he left as he could get away with, but who's to know at this point? Maybe he wouldn't surrender in Iraq. Maybe he wouldn't really try to crush American free enterprise and drive up energy prices with punishing tax increases and mandates.

Now, while it is certainly true that all politicians try to mold their message to gain as many votes as they can, with John McCain you still know pretty well where he stands on the major issues of the day, even if you don't agree with him on everything. But whether you're liberal, conservative, or in the middle, how does anyone know at this point what Barack Obama would really do for/to the country? Who's willing to roll the dice with their vote in November? Who can believe a story that keeps changing?

This one really takes the cake, even by the low standards Senator Obama has set in some of his previous statements, like claiming he didn't really know people he's known for twenty years (Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger Flav, Tony Rezko, William Ayers... Doesn't Obama know anyone who isn't a kook and/or a crook?).

From the ABC News "Political Punch" blog, in response to a question about Obama's appointment of Jim Johnson (who seems to have received some really primo loan terms from Countrywide) and Eric Holder (who recommended the Marc Rich pardon to president Clinton) to head his VP search committee:

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships...

"So this - you know, these aren't folks who are working for me," Obama said.

People who are heading up your VP search are "tangentially related to the campaign"? They don't work for Obama? Who's actually going to believe such a whopper, besides some of Obama's most obsessed cult-like followers?

Is Obama doing some sort of grand sociology experiment, to see how many outrageous things he can say and still remain a viable candidate for national office? Are we Americans all being "Punked"? He's got to be kidding.

More from:
Hot Air
The Campaign Spot
Commentary

Video

Barack Obama continues to peddle the nonsensical and disingenuous claim that he is practicing "a new kind of politics" and is not beholden to "special interests". And his DeMSM allies at the AP continue to eat it up uncritically.

...Obama imposed on the DNC the same ban on money from federal lobbyists and political action committees that he has placed on his campaign.

....

By banning federal lobbyist and PAC money from the DNC, Obama sought to avoid an inconsistency with his own campaign's fundraising policy. The ban applies to future fundraising, meaning the party won't have to return money it has already raised from lobbyists and PACs.

"Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard - we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Bristol, Va.

"We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people."

....

The new fundraising policy is not expected to hurt the party's fundraising ability because lobbyists and PACs do not constitute a major source of money.

But as we noted last month, Obama is up to his eyeballs in special interest money and influence. Whether or not they employ officially registered lobbyists or use PACs is entirely irrelevant. He's taking their money, they're working to get him elected, he's doing their policy bidding. This is just more meaningless talk and symbolism. He's promising not to accept money from what would be a small fraction of his potential donor base any way, while raking it in from "special interests" he supports. The Man of Action Adjectives strikes again.

An editorial from the Washington Post today:

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

This should be kept in mind as the Democrats continue droning on with their partisan, year-old talking points that "the war is lost", "the surge is a failure", "the president's Iraq strategy is a failure", etc., even as their media allies find it harder to ignore the evidence of success.

The Post tries to instruct Senator Obama:

...the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable...

When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

But an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal without regard to the facts on the ground in Iraq is precisely what Obama has been promising. And Obama didn't merely float a strategy "last year", he continues ignoring the evidence even today. Senator McCain has said, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war." Senator Obama obviously doesn't agree.

More comments from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

A little good news on the global warming fight from CNNMoney.com:

Chances dim for climate-change legislation

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.

....

Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill - already a long shot at best - becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.

Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline....

"Democrats '08: Fighting for higher gas prices and a slower economy"