Glenn Reynolds is all over Obama’s amazing flip-flops in recent days, and quotes Ann Althouse’s observation that she voted for Obama in the primaries because she knew he wasn’t telling the truth about his Left positions and would change his stance when it was convenient. Then Reynolds talks about the “rubes”:

the "who are the rubes?" line has been a running thing with Obama, going back to this post: "When it comes to things like NAFTA, there seem to be only two possibilities. Either Obama’s anti-NAFTA talk is a ruse to fool the rubes, or his coterie of distinguished economic experts is a ruse to fool a different batch of rubes." To expand a bit: Either the people who believed the early-primary left-talk are the rubes, or the people who believe Obama now are the rubes . . . or anyone who thinks Obama has fixed principles at all is a rube. Your call.

Quoting an Ann Althouse commenter, Glenn Reynolds puts togethers the concepts of lies, rubes and cults:

I think the meaning of “rube” is similar to a hustler’s mark — someone who believes things they shouldn’t because of some externally generated desire to believe. There’s an element of conscious deception, too — a rube is lied to, not misled.

I think the rube factor with Obama comes into play on two issues in particular: NAFTA and the war. On both issues, you get the impression that he’s making promises that he not only won’t keep, but that he can’t keep and shouldn’t keep.

There are two interrelated issues here. The first is whether Obama has any principles at all. Althouse, Reynolds and Greenwald — from different parts of the political spectrum — have raised this question explicitly. The second is why any reasonable person, seeing these amazing pretzel twists, would continue to vote for Obama on any other basis other than that “he is the One”. After all, they could hardly be voting for his positions as they change with the calendar, the results of polls and the fortunes of his pals.