For years people on the right (including me) have joked about Bush Derangement Syndrome - a hatred for President Bush that is so deep that it distorts rational thought. As Barack Obama moves to the political center, the effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome are becoming clearer. It is not possible to show examples where opinions changed according to who was supporting a measure.
As an example, take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Keith Olbermann. The previous version of FISA expired earlier this year. Congress passed a renewal which Bush vetoed because it did not include amnesty for executives who cooperated with the government on monitoring phone calls. Olbermann, among others, had a fit over this provision. In a rage-filled commentary, Olbermann compared the communications executives to NAZIs. As far as he was concerned, Bush should never have asked for the immunity. The bill should have passed as it was originally presented.
He also implied that the communications executives should be tried for war crimes, something he has advocated for many people in Bush's cabinet.
Nevermind that without the immunity the communications companies would probably have cut off access to phone records.
Obama originally announced that he would never vote for a bill that included immunity. He was roundly applauded by the left.
Cut forward to June, 2008. Obama is now the unofficial Democratic nominee and needs to appeal to a wider group of Americans. The new version of FISA with immunity came up for a vote and Obama voted in favor of it.
So, how did Olbermann react to his candidate supporting the NAZIs? He applauded him for standing up to the left.
To be clear - when Bush supports immunity it is a national discrase. When Obama votes for a bill that includes immunity it is a sign of political courage.
Obviously, the difference is not the immunity, it is the person supporting it.
This might also be a documentable example of Obama's personal reality distortion. If he is for it, it must be the proper action. If he is against it then it must be wrong. If he changes positions then the issue must have changed because Obama always has the correct position.
To summarize - if Bush is for something then it is wrong and must be opposed. If Obama is for it then it must be right and supported, even if it is the same thing.
There are limits to Obama's reality-warping. The Huffington Post, a pro-Obama mecca, was outraged at this support.