A commendably pointless attempt by the New Yorker to blend merit-based analysis of Barack Obama's campaign with the flip-flop-obsessed perspective of cable news. There's not a lot of new information presented here, but the assessment is refreshing. The apparent goal is to break the intellectual laziness that categorizes a public statement or policy change as a flip-flop when the reality is more complex. That said, the New Yorker could have come down harder on Obama's more substantial reversals and contradictions.

I've never seen someone attempt to put political doublespeak in a positive light.

This is a reasoned article that discusses the "flip-flops" that Obama is accused of making, ranks them, alludes to McCain's "flip-flops" then concludes that "flip-flops" are preferrable to George Bush's practice of never adjusting to changing circumstances. Though reasoned, the article on its path to it's final conclusion is clearly pro-Obama.

An interesting story about Obama's supposed changes of position. The results are less than many would suggested, but seem impartial. This is a fair story from the same source as the as the 'satire' front page.

More a "review article" than a "report," but a fair analysis of the so-called Obama flip-flops. It would have been more balanced (but much longer) if equal space had been given to examining McCain's much more substantial changes in position.

It was even handed, however, I am more concerned with what it was saying in that it only could present everything in a immediate short term context, okay, maybe that was because of the limitations of space and time. At any rate my question is what is the point? If the point was about being able to change, even if the change is seems to be a "flip flop" is better than clinging to a idea out of nothing other than stubborness; then it would have been better if it could have mentioned some rationale or context, instead it just seemed a bit cynical.