James Joyner has one of the most sensible responses to the “flexibility” non-controversy:

Similarly, if reelected, the president isn’t going to do a complete 180 on missile defense–but he’d have more breathing room without having to make policy under a campaign microscope. That’s just reality.

Of course, it’s true that elections constrain what any elected leader can do during the run-up to an election, and electioneering sometimes requires more hard-line posturing for the benefit of domestic audiences (which incidentally accounts for the recent intensified official criticism of the U.S. inside Russia ahead of Putin’s election). Viewed this way, Obama is just stating the obvious about the limitations that exist during an election year. The overwrought response to these remarks from some Republicans helps prove the point. If Obama is re-elected, there will be less political pressure at home after the election is over, but it doesn’t mean that there will be no constraints on what Obama does. As James says, it doesn’t mean that Obama is going to turn on a dime on an issue where he has been fairly uncompromising. The people most convinced that Obama’s “flexibility” comments mean something are the ones who already believe (wrongly) that Obama has abjectly sold out U.S. and allied interests to the Russians from day one. Meanwhile, in the real world Obama has been persistent in pursuing missile defense in Europe despite Russian complaints.

What no one else seems to be considering is that these remarks were little more than throwaway lines used to placate the Russians. The reason so many people seem ready to attach so much significance to these “flexibility” comments is that they were captured by a live microphone and they weren’t supposed to be public. However, as Drezner pointed out again recently, just because something was intended to be kept private doesn’t make it true.

Even if true, it doesn’t follow that Obama’s reference to “flexibility” means what confirmed opponents of his “reset” policy think it does. When a Russian skeptic hears Obama say that he just needs to win re-election before he can be more “flexible” on missile defense, he probably assumes this is just a way to blow off Russian concerns without giving unnecessary offense. Based on Obama’s actual record on missile defense (and not the fantasy version circulated by partisan opponents), this would probably be the right way to interpret the remarks.