In a whiplash inducing flip-flop Barack Obama, declared himself “disappointed” that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views” at the U.N. Huh? Last year he not only expressed no “disappointment” at Ahmadinejad’s appearance, but had this to say when asked if anything had changed with regard to his willingness for direct, unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad:

Yeah, nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but w e should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.

It does seem peculiar in the extreme that Obama recognizes the UN is a “disappointing” propaganda platform, but is not aware that a meeting with the U.S. President would be a far more desirable one, an even bigger platform, for the Iranian President. At some point even the most devout spinners can’t put this all together in a coherent scheme.It is fairly obvious what is going on: Obama ran Left to please the netroot base in the primary (e.g. oppose Kyl-Lieberman, promise unconditional talks with everyone, insist on a fixed timetable for withdraw in Iraq) and then tried to wriggle free of each of those in the general election. But which is the real Obama? How would we ever know for sure?