Column: Obama Flip-flops On Public Funding. So What?

This story was written by Mike Wilson, Daily Texan

Editorial boards across the nation have come together in condemnation of Sen. Barack Obama's "flip-flop" decision to abide by public financing for his presidential campaign. Though he did not unequivocally vow to follow it, the presumed Democratic nominee repeatedly proffered strong support for public financing, promised to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" and later declared he would "sit down with Sen. John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody" in a meeting that never occurred.

On June 19, in a video to his supporters, Obama explained that he made this decision in order to combat the anticipated 527 Republican attack ads and move past the current "broken" system, since a large amount of small donors could achieve success while removing his campaign from the influence of special interests. But could this flop possibly damage Obama in the same way that John Kerry suffered from flip-flopitis in 2004? Fortunately for Democrats - and unfortunately for Republicans - it won't.

The public financing system matters little to the average voter. Unless there are salacious details related to cigar or golf club transactions in return for business investments, mention of public financing tends to fall on deaf ears. For most Democrats, having the money advantage for once just feels too good to merit a public denunciation. And Republicans can't clamor too loudly because they're just as eager to get rid of campaign finance reform.

Further, the tag of being a flip-flopper just won't have the same connotation or effect it did in 2004. McCain recently executed his own flip-flop on the policy of opening of unleased public lands to oil drilling, after changing his mind on the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, throughout this campaign, the public hasn't really paid attention to Obama's shifts, such as his support for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill, even though it carries a provision he promised to filibuster, or his retreat from a protectionist stance on NAFTA. With his vote against the Iraq war and the political success of his refusal to support McCain and Hillary Clinton's "gas tax holiday," Obama has earned enough "strong leadership" currency to last quite awhile.

Criticism from editorialists and the Republican camp argue that Obama's switches betray his rhetoric of change. No matter - as many have said, the change candidate in a change election will win. McCain, for all his maverick past, is too firmly ensconced within the policies of the last eight years to be the change candidate.

The American response to the ever-changing minds of politicians doesn't exist with same vitriol as it did in 2004, when being seen as a flip-flopper was tantamount to being a slimy wuss without a backbone. After dealing with Bush's hard-headed stubbornness for the last eight years, the ability to change one's mind is no longer such an immediate cause for disapproval. After all, there's a reason the Ralph Naders and Ron Pauls of the world will never be president. Politics isn't about sticking to your guns on each vote and each position. It's about trading your vote on lesser issues to fight for the ones you think really matter.