A lot of good it did them

He seemed to have simply not made up his mind.

Biden said that he was for an amendment that restricts access of poor women to an abortion. Now, politically realities may dictate that he may have to make trade offs, as President Obama once had to do on that amendment, I understand and accept that. What I don't accept is a flat out statement indicating that a person is soundly on the wrong side of such an issue.

i give credit to mccain for not using it against him .

Obama had gone back and forth on the issue of gay marriage for years.

Obama at one point was okay with it, then decided there was a valid religious objection to it and that civil unions would be something he could support, that would give gays the same rights as marriage, but withhold the "marriage" word for man-woman. A couple of years later, he said he was undecided on the issue and was evolving. A couple more years later he had decided that he fully supported gay marriage.

So Obama struggled with it for years, evolving along the way, like most Americans. And he supported gay rights and civil unions (so it's not like he was against gay people becoming legally joined partners with marital rights).

I wonder about Biden changing his mind in two days on an issue where he's held a constant opposite view for years.

I think it's for the obvious reason of votes. Which is fine. You gotta take whatever a candidate says in election season with a grain of salt.

Later on, when the Hyde Amendment is in a bill that he signs as President, he'll say he had to, because it's in the bill. You can't hold up a bill waiting for the 100% that may never come; you have to take the 80% that's on the table. Or maybe it won't be in the bill.

I doubt that any bill will get to the President's desk that has funding for abortions in it, anyway. All the candidates know that.

His opposition was, imo, completely political.

He referred to the religious aspect more than once. He wasn't evangelical religious. But the family went to church regularly, and I got the impression that he had a personal faith that he followed.

He was evolving along with most of the country, too. In 2004, most people in America were against gay marriage. I remember that specifically because it came up during the John Kerry run for President.

I'd wager most Americans don't support federal funding of abortions. It's complicated. These politicians are humans.

Most Americans support women in their decision to choose what they need for their own health...why would they say we shouldn’t pay for it?

are against federal funding of abortions.

It's not like Biden was against all abortion, either. Not even most. His votes for widening the Medicaid funding of it showed that.

I'll say it again, since you want to repeat yourself:

Actually you do change your mind over two intense days of feedback when you're a leader.

And you sign bills because you trust the wisdom of The People's interests that the bills represent.

That's what makes leaders different when it's country over party.

It's not fine, either, to believe that no one "really" changes; that who we is isn't who they "really" are. That's conflict and difference-driven thinking. As if you want to see difference as a deficit.

Everyone gets better when people let them. No one should be forced to always stay the way they once were. Pigeon holers try to do that to people. Not just leaders.

Studies show that the smartest people change their minds decisively and frequently.

On a national level, this boils down to church and state separation, anyway, not some personal problem that Biden has about why he changed his mind.

We're talking about politicians in the midst of a presidential campaign. To change one's 40-year-held views on something doesn't happen in two days. To SAY you've changed your views or signal that you'll go along with it is what politicians do. I understand and accept that. I think that about ALL politicians.

I don't think it's possible to have a sudden epiphany for a decades-long held view, and coincidentally your long held view would cost you votes. And that's okay. That's called politicking. As long as people understand that.

I look only for the general direction the candidate wants the country to go. Whether he in essence believes in health care for all and is willing to fight for it, is pro-choice and won't flinch on that, etc. His priorities. What he'll go to the mat for and not bend on. Things like that. Particular plans and promises on individual bills and rules and exceptions are to be taken lightly, IMO.

An exception may be a key issue for a candidate that he's long been concerned with and has worked on extensively. That candidate may have the skeleton of a plan. Even then, only the general thrust of the plan and the goals matter, because the plan that will get passed will have been amended hundreds of times and may be very different in the end.

our party's goal of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people most of the time.

The rest I won't deal with, since you acknowledge that there can be exceptions, which I claim can easily become the standard way that good leaders operate, with amendations usually being improvements.

We cool?

It deals with whether I'd pay attention to a candidate's detailed plan for an issue; I normally wouldn't, but would, if the candidate had been pushing that issue for years. That paragraph has nothing to do with a politician changing his mind on something the politician has worked against for decades. Biden doesn't have a detailed plan for the Hyde Amendment or a health plan that involves excluding it.

I was talking about detailed plans, like Warren's plans. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.

I'm not leaning toward supporting Biden, anyway, and it looks like he's on his way to getting the nomination, so none of it matters.

Look at what they did with Super Storm Sandy when mostly blue parts of the country were involved. They were perfectly ok with people sufferings because none of the areas they count on for votes were heavily affected.

But our leaders think about suffering people first and how to get help to them. Republicans force things into bills that are objectionable, knowing that our leaders, in an effort to help suffering people will compromise. They do that over and over because they don't have the morals of rats.

But I know Trump and Franklin Graham are. More's the pity.

digging a hole!

This is the tweet I sent to Rep Cedric Richmond this morning.

after strongly and consistently holding that viewpoint for years, is that it's not likely a real belief.

But the good news is...nothing a politician says during election season should be written in stone. They're gathering support and votes.

What they do when and if they win will be based on circumstances at the time. If a budget bill comes to his desk with the Hyde Amendment in it, he will likely sign it, rather than shut the govt down like Trump did. Shutting the govt down only hurts federal workers and doesn't get you a better bill, anyway. And hurts the Prez politically.

So all these detailed plans that candidates roll out and such...not very meaningful, since what will get done in the end will look nothing like those plans.

I look at the general direction that each candidate wants to go. The general beliefs. The character and personal characteristics of the person. If they have a general idea of a sort of direction to take health care or whatever. That's all you can really tell from a candidate, IMO. At least at this stage.

And, he's listening to his supporters.. I like and appreciate that.

This is about beating the orange psycho right out of our WH. That's what I care about.

easy for me to remember, ancianita!

not be able to beat the devil. Remember it's the key states, not California or Connecticut!

Gotta take one for the team this time. Too much at stake, like Democracy !!!

Who else has never said anything until it was thought out completely by all sides?

Frankly, I am not sure where he stands. I think he either hadn’t thought about his previous position or he hasn’t thought through his current position. Not reassuring. I am not convinced of his commitment on this, nor on his willingness to act on it.

Joe has had PLENTY of time to look at the issues that Dems care about and review his own history. He has had 2 years to assess where the voters stand now, versus where he has stood. Should have come out of the gate with a position and stuck with it. Women’s reproductive rights has been highly visible for a while.

I won’t agree with ANY candidate on everything, but I will respect him/her for clearly articulating a position.

If twitter says flip, then you flip! This show strength and courage!

It saves a speech that only JFK could pull off and since he gave that one in Dallas it might be best just to avoid it. And getting far far away from the ghost of H Hyde is advisable. In any case it doesn't make a lot of difference since it's Congress that adds the rider every year and he isn't running for Senate.

It was an indefensible stance in our party in this day and age--which is why he changed it.

I'm just bemused by his defenders, who lauded his steadfast, principled stance, rooted in his upbringing and personal beliefs...oh and Hyde is immaterial anyway and look who else voted for it! etc etc etc

is the way so many are blindly supporting someone with such a horrible lack of judgement that they did not KNOW that it was WRONG to support the Hyde Amendment in the first place at a time when women and girls are under attack.