Everyone changes his or her mind on occasion, and it is acceptable for a politician's stance on an issue to evolve over a period of years. It is quite another thing for one's viewpoint to change on a dime for political convenience. To gain an understanding as to what this administration actually stands for, all one needs to do is figure out what it previously stood against.
During his 2010 State of the Union speech, Obama defiantly smacked-down the Supreme Court for its Citizen's United v. Federal Elections Commission decision because it opened the "floodgates for special interests." Obama said, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."
In light of its newfound adulation of Super PACs, in fairness, Obama's statement should be revised: "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests --unless you are a Democrat."
This stark volte-face does not bode well for an administration which once promised to be different, superior --even transformational. It is dizzying to listen to the cacophony of disjointed explanations as to the administration's recent move to the Super PAC "Dark Side." Both senior campaign advisor David Axelrod and Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina implied it was acceptable to chuck core values and make this logic-defying and ethics-denying decision because the administration could not "afford to play by two sets of rules" meaning theirs and ours -- and swapped them for something a bit more user-friendly, namely, "Ours and Ours."