home

Break The Public Financing Pledge Now Sen. Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Unlike most good government types, I believe that until there is full public financing of political campaigns, the Democratic Party should NEVER give away an advantage when it has one. This year the Democratic nominee is almost certain to have a financing advantage over the GOP nominee John McCain. Senator Barack Obama earlier made a pledge to abide by public financing in the general election if the Republican opponent would agree. John McCain has not only agreed, he is now pressing Obama to honor his pledge. Senator Obama, break that pledge. And do it now. Why? This piece from Obama strategist David Axelrod from Face the Nation provides a clue:

“Bob, we're not backing away [from our public finance pledge]. What Sen. Obama said is, once the nomination is secured, we will sit down with Sen. McCain as the nominee, and we will talk this through," Axelrod said. "Let's get through the primary season, sit down. We obviously want … nobody's been stronger on campaign finance reform than Barack Obama.”

Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break the pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain.

< In a Vote By Numbers World, Who Rules? | Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Contrast? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Break The Public Financing Pledge Now Sen. Obama | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Totally Agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    The media is already heating up on this issue.  Take the hit now, it won't hurt him against Hillary, but it will hurt him against McCain.  Rip the band-aid.

    Heh heh, yeah, but... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:01 PM EST
    "Last fall, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of civic groups from five Midwestern states, released a questionnaire that asked candidates if they would "agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign" if "your major opponents agree." Obama's response: "Yes."(link)

    Maybe he'll try to argue that he checked the wrong box.  Another "oops" in a line of "oopsies".  If that's the case, do we really want someone like that in charge of the football?

    Obama Questionaire (none / 0) (#73)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:04:08 PM EST
    Nah,   he'll  just  claim  his  staff  who  filled it out   didn't  understand  the instructions.  

    As usual.   :)

    Parent

    Well then, someone tell David Axelrod (none / 0) (#82)
    by doyenne49 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:41:10 PM EST
    who seems to be flailing around off-message on this.

    Parent
    Here's the actual response (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    Question: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?

    OBAMA: Yes. . . .  If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

    He pledged to pursue an agreement.  I am not an expert in campaign finance, but if there is a way to sabotage the agreement rather than break the pledge, that would be better.

    Parent

    ahhhh (none / 0) (#76)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    much ado about nothing.

    Parent
    AF (none / 0) (#77)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    My  allusion   was  to his  questionaire  he filled out  to run  for  the  Senate.

    He  was   FOR  gun  control.
    He  was   AGAINST  any  restrictions  on  abortion.
    He  was  AGAINST   parental  notification  of  minors  getting  abortions.

    That  won't  go  over  very  well with  evangelicals  and  the  South.  

    He  RAN  as  very  ultra-liberal;  after he  was  elected  and  was  questioned  about  that  questionaire,   he  said  his  "staff" misread  the  questions  and didn't  answer  correctly  for him.     (cough ,  cough)

    If you think the rightwing  won't  use  that  previous   questionaire---and his  excuse---in  the  general,  as part  of  framing  him  as   Teddy  Kennedy  ultra-liberal,   you're  very  naive.    

    Parent

    Easy (none / 0) (#118)
    by manys on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    He  RAN  as  very  ultra-liberal;

    The only people who would say Obama is running as ultra-liberal are those who haven't heard of a little place called "the rest of the world."

    Parent

    Interesting Obama Primary Fl spennding (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.
    Center for Responsive Politics Can we close the Obama did not campaign in Florida chapter?

    Keep your comment and link (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM EST
    handy, as that "But Obama didn't campaign in FL" meme is repeated incessantly.

    Parent
    Good catch! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Politics of Plagiarism:Obama's integrity problem (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:14:12 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat..

    Are you concerned about Obama's record of lying? Ben Smith at politico.com,along with Mike Allen highlight the two videos of Deval Patrick's speech and Obama's. And there in black and white,is the great orator, the RFK and JFK of our generation,Senator Obama,  lifting word for word his inspiring oratory from that other shining light, Patrick Deval, his friend and fellow politician.  Isn't this fraudulent...to portray a speech as your own..when it is plainly not? Can you please comment about this serious problem for Democrats?  Because in this current post, you are concerned about the issue of integrity...Obama's vs. McCain's and how it will get spun in the media...or what it will do to Obama's image as truth teller...Well, if that is considered  a problem...what about cribbing someone elses old speech?   To top it off, these speeches poach  truly great lines  from FDR and MLK...Is someone so full himself that he is oblivious to charges of plagiarism ?  Is this not dream material for the Republicans and the media?  Won't this be the perfect excuse to take Obama off his pedestal?  

    Nothing on DK or Huff Post (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:43:29 AM EST
    about this.

    Parent
    Then make sure to enlighten them (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:00:32 AM EST
    We need to hear from the Obamabots and sundry elites...we need them to view and compare these two videos, these two speeches...and explain why Obama is quoting word for word Deval Patrick's speech of a few years earlier, without attribution.  Perhaps, our esteemed academicians, those who gleefully support the great hope of our generation, can comment on academic standards in our institutions of higher learning, and whether Obama's ethical lapse, is of concern.  Or is this the new, cool academic short cut tool?  

    Parent
    Taylormarsh.com has a Video Juxtaposition, Post (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:57:04 AM EST
    entitled Obama's Presidential Con.  And the video is short, sweet, uncomplicated and a dead center bullseye at The One's character and authenticy.  

    Check it out.  It demolishes his character in a few minutes.  But more importantly...the gold standard...Authenticity...is shattered.  We must spread this around...discuss it....highlight it...before we are sandbagged with it in September.

    Parent

    authenticity (none / 0) (#98)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:03:04 AM EST


    Parent
    And you'll see nothing on this (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:08:00 AM EST
    at talk left from me, because it is a stupid story.

    I am not the anti-Kid Oakland.

    Parent

    My sarcastic tone is not meant for you (none / 0) (#88)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:03:38 AM EST
    I hope it didn't sound that way?  I just want all of us to start posting this in as many places as possible.  It is just stunning.  This nightmare is so much worse than even most of us imagine. (Though I imagine it as a nightmare worse than McGovern or Carter or Dukakis..worse than anything in our recent history)

    Parent
    David Axelrod is the guru (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:23:54 AM EST
    to both Obama and Patrick, by the way.  

    Parent
    Axelrod is The One who should be running (none / 0) (#97)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:02:32 AM EST
    Yes I did know that...but no one else seems to...

    This is why Obama is such a dud in other forums...without a script...he flounders.

    Alert. Alert.  Nightmare approaching.  

    Parent

    Axelrod is also a Press insider (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:29:03 AM EST
    as well,  look closer much is the same there is a Bill Clinton lordy it over, a social liberal surrogate MSNBC Press doing the nasty, charges of swift boating when his opponent discusses his actual record ,

    and again Obama lost by 15 percent in Mass, go check out the many surprises Mass has experienced upon discovering who their Party introduced to them without much detail through the same caucus scheme.

    Parent

    New York Times on (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:57:36 AM EST
    Patrick/Obama speeches:

    NYT

    Parent

    The irony (none / 0) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:19:32 AM EST
    *****************

    Honey, you are witty and incisive.

    Write more, it's a pleasure to be both entertained and informed by your posts.

    Parent

    Turnabout (none / 0) (#119)
    by manys on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    Did Obama use the actual phrase "importance of words?" If so, you're just as much a plagiarist as those you decry.

    Parent
    Technically he didn't make a "pledge" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    But what I expect Obama will do is set a number of conditions on public financing that McCain simply can't agree to without being destroyed (i.e. only donations in amounts below $400). McCain then rejects Obama's conditions and looks like the one in the thrall of rich people instead.

    You must be joking (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    Technically what?

    And he will make an offer that is not consistent with the existing public financing law?\

    And you REALLY believe he will get away with it against MCCAIN?

    I tell you what he needs to do all that NOW when he is running against Clinton. Whatever he is going to do he needs to do NOW.

    It will not work when Clinton is out of the picture.

    Parent

    Technically, yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    See here:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_public_financing_problem.html

    I first pressed Obama's camp on this particular point more than a year ago, on Feb. 7, 2007, when they first floated the notion. And they deliberately preserved some wiggle room then.

    "We're looking to see if we can preserve the option," spokesman Bill Burton said, when asked if the campaign was committing, conditionally, to public financing,

    I asked Burton again today if this was a "pledge," and he repeated that it's an "option."

    The whole thing is pretty arcane, and hardly the huge general election issue you're making it out to be.

    Parent

    It WILL be of he waits for McCain (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    This is about the MEDIA, not the public.

    you miss the point entirely.

    you just assume Obama will be the Media Darling he is even when Clinton is not his opponent.

    You live in a dreamworld Neo.

    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    Just what we need, a candidate who can get tagged with a "Clintonian" answer who isn't even named Clinton.

    The issue isn't going to be public financing, it's going to be about how Obama talks a good game, but doesn't follow through.  He makes promises, but doesn't deliver.  Unlike that straight talker John McCain, when push comes to shove, Obama sides with his contributors Rezko and Exelon over his promise to the American public.

    And, yeah, you can tell me how that's not true.  And I'll tell you that Gore never claimed to have invented the internet and that Kerry really was a Vietnam war hero.

    It doesn't matter if it's true.


    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    Yes I am familiar with the narrative McCain is running against Obama.

    No I don't think this squabble over public campaign financing will be the decisive issue that throws the election to the Republicans.

    Parent

    The road to the aggregate (none / 0) (#61)
    by annabelly on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:04:02 PM EST
    was built on  this  not being the thing that turns the election. By the time the Swiftboaters came around, enough doubt had been planted and sown.

    Parent
    How naive of you Korha (none / 0) (#72)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:58:14 PM EST
    Obviously what captures the mind of voters and the media is obscure processual squabbles.

    Parent
    Shouldn't McCain tread carefully in light (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:51:12 PM EST
    of Keating 5 scandal?

    Parent
    If the MSM has a love it's for McCain (none / 0) (#63)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:11:47 PM EST


    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    Actually, I can see why, having visited the Hanoi Hilton a couple years ago.  Due to his promise to appoint Scalia/Roberts-type justices to SCOTUS, I cannot vote for him, but I have a lot of admiration for his courage and fortitude.

    Parent
    BTD Advises Obama to Break Public Financing Pledge (none / 0) (#86)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:57:04 AM EST
    ******************

    BTD, I read your post and the mouth hangeth open:

    "Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break (Obama's public financing) pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain." (Emphasis added.)

    The cynicism and opportunism is staggering: crush Clinton NOW while you still can; win by any means, ethics, integrity, and pledges be damned.

    What hubris for you to presume: "Democrats do not care".

    Following your advice, may, or may not, help Obama knock Clinton out of the race. But what then? If Obama goes this route, is there no foreseeable negative blowback for him in the GE?

    Won't Obama's 'flip-flop'rob him of the moral high ground which would, otherwise, allow him (Obama) to undercut McCain's  greatest strength: his enduring (bogus) legacy as a straight talker.

    Isn't that even more likely considering that, as you say, McCain is already "pressuring Obama to honor his pledge"? McCain is setting a Catch-22 trap here.

    Don't Obama's supporters revere him precisely because he disavows self-serving, cut-throat campaign tactics?

    Won't some of those voters peel off? Won't it further repulse people who are already iffy about Obama.

    Couldn't all of this translate into fewer votes for Obama and/or more votes for McCain in the GE?

    Honey, your advice may have catastrophic consequences.

    Careful with that axe Eugene!


    Parent

    I thought he said (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    he was breaking it already?

    Not according to Axelrod (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST


    Parent
    i would be (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    pissed(can i say that here) if he took public financing.  If he makes it to the general i think he should have surrogates attack McCain from the right on it.

    John McCain couldn't raise enough money, so he tried to get tax payers to subsidize his campaign.

    Parent

    He won't (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    The question now is when does he break the pledge.

    I say now because it can hurt him when McCain is his opponent. It won't when Clinton is his opponent.

    this is about the 8th time I have repeated my post in a comment.

    I am curious, did anyone read the post?

    Parent

    I didnt (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    dispute anything from your post. except that i had read he broke the pledge.

    Parent
    BTD Advises Obama to Break Public Financing Pledge (none / 0) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:21:59 AM EST
    ******************

    I'm replying to your comment where you said: "I am curious, did anyone read the post?".

    Well, yes I read it, and replied to what I read, and would, now, like to add that when I first read your post, I thought, with some dismay: this is suicidal ideological fanaticism.

    Also, while Clinton is still in the race, won't she be able to (justifiably) call out Obama if he breaks this much-ballyhooed pledge.

    So much for Obama's monopoly on integrity.

    Parent

    i knew I read (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    he had somewhere per ezra

    Obama made exactly the right move today and decided to forgo public financing in the general election and instead rely on the small donor funding model he's successfully constructed in the primary.


    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong but... (none / 0) (#5)
    by rdandrea on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    ...your candidate doesn't want public financing.

    So why is it wrong to do the same thing that Hillary does?

    Correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    but what do you know about the candidate I am supporting?

    But more than that, huh? Who said it was wrong? I am URGING Obama to break the pledge. I want him to to reject the public financing system.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#15)
    by rdandrea on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    Because whoever the Democratic candidate is, he or she will have mote enthusiasm, and the money that brings, than McCain.

    No point in sacrificing any advantage to the dark side.

    Parent

    um (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:30:17 PM EST
    What part of my post did you not understand?

    Parent
    I didn't understand (none / 0) (#27)
    by rdandrea on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    why it was even an issue.

    Parent
    Do you now? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:37:54 PM EST
    If not, reread my post.

    Parent
    I read your post, more than once (none / 0) (#37)
    by rdandrea on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    It simply gives legs to McCain's whining about public financing.

    He can't raise money.  He wants to hamstring either opponent.

    Democrats can't afford to let him define the issues for this campaign.  There are many issues more important than where the money comes from.  The war, the economy; I could go on and on.  He's just looking for an edge, and it should be denied to him.

    You and I are in violent agreement, in case you couldn't tell.

    Parent

    IT cuts his leg off (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:51:53 PM EST
    You simply do not understand the Media imo.

    Parent
    I do understand the media (none / 0) (#55)
    by rdandrea on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    And as a person who has done political campaigns before, I recognize that worrying about media bias only takes one off message.

    Better to simply go ahead with the plan and let McCain whine away.  It will get him some free media for a while, but ultimately it will cost him.

    People hate whiners.

    As I said, I agree with you.  Do it now, get it over with, and get back on message.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#102)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:25:05 AM EST
    saying one thing and then doing another. It doesn't matter what your opponents stance is, what matters is that you are flip flopping.
    That being said, I think BTD is probably right. Obama can get away with it a lot easier now when he is the media darling. Not that McCain won't raise the issue but it will already have been factored in for a lot of people.

    Parent
    If he pledged, he pledged (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:14:08 PM EST
    He shouldn't worry about why McCain does until after McCain breaks it.

    Too late to change it midstream if you want to have any creditability.

    McCain won't break it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    until Obama does. He WANTS the limits. Obama will outraise him 2-1.

    Parent
    That's why I expect (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    that Romney and his $30 mil checkbook will find his way onto the ticket.

    Parent
    Somehow (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    I doubt Obama will have a 2-1 edge when the rubber hits the road, but that is not the point.

    The point is he pledged.

    Do you think him changing because he has an edge is ethically correct?

    Parent

    To the extent... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:15:15 PM EST
    ... that Obama worries, me, it's that he's too naive and idealistic. If he just came out and said that when he has the hammer compared to McCain he plans to use it, I'd respect him for that.

    He WILL say that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:16:22 PM EST
    It is better to say it NOW.

    Parent
    I agree and you post was fairly simple (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycvoter on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    I don't get why people don't understand what you are saying.  I like to take the arguement that he was a neophyte idiot to make any kind of pledge that would tie an arm behind his back, unlike my candidate HRC who know that until there is something that binds us all to keep all her options open.  But yeah, he should just take the hit and move on forward.  

    Parent
    BTD, quick question (none / 0) (#17)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    Why is it better now? I've read back over your thread, but don't follow the reason.  Plus, don't we have to consider the possibility that Obama might somehow lose to Clinton, even if it's less probable now? If he makes a solid pledge now (assuming he truly has a notion to make such a pledge), and then loses to Clinton, what will she say to McCain when he presses her to "follow the example of Senator Obama, who was honorable enough to blah blah blah..."? To us it won't matter if she tells him to stick it, as we'll understand she isn't bound by her competitor's pledge.  But to the undecided, it will look like she's just not as honorable as "the two gentlemen."  

    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    From my post, the  third graf of 3:

    Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break the pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain.


    Parent
    Think it's best (none / 0) (#43)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:48:30 PM EST
    for both Clinton and Obama to keep mum until one emerges as the clear nominee.  Any pledges or rejections of pledges at this point would invite troublesome expectations for any upset winner.  Just  MO.

    Parent
    Then you do not even address (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:51:16 PM EST
    the Media bias and St. John McCain angles.

    Your choice but you basically went OT to my post.

    Parent

    I'm not sure about that (none / 0) (#104)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM EST
    I think he is just used to getting away with things. What kind of idealistic politician would go to a man under federal investigation for corruption to get help buying a house? Obama makes a big deal about ethics, yet does this. He seems to think he will not be held accountable, and so far he is right. He's Teflon. (And the low price he paid for the house does have at least the appearance of a violation of the Senate gift ban.)

    Parent
    Unfortunately, HRC apparently (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:24:24 PM EST
    plans to criticize Obama at the TX debate if he doesn't honor his pledge.

    That would be kind of silly of her... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    ... since she has not made a similar one. If I were her, I'd knock him for having made it in the first place.

    Parent
    I think she should just let it go; (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    if she gets the nom. she may try to reach an agreement w/McCain to accept public financing.  

    Parent
    You don't disarm yourself (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:36:14 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama are both prodigious fundraisers, and McCain, especially by Republican standards, is not. Neither of them should voluntarily surrender that advantage.

    Parent
    I'm hung up on that $5 mil. loan and (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    something I read about Solis not informing HRC the campaign coffers were almost empty (not buying that one though).

    Parent
    I hope not. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    In Texas that will be a mistake.  

    Parent
    Stupid of her (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    Nobody cares.

    Parent
    I kind of agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:31:34 PM EST
    ... that nobody cares about this issue, it's just too arcane.  OTOH, people might care about "breaking the pledge" part.  But, like a posted upstream said, "rip the bandaid now", get it over with.  Any negative traction (does that metaphor even work?) will fade within days.

    Parent
    The Only Possible Attack (none / 0) (#28)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:35:25 PM EST
    would be that he was stupid to put himself into this position in the first place and that he'll be a weaker general election candidate either way because of it (he'll either have fewer resources or will open up an area for a McCain attack).

    But I agree that I don't think such an attack will move many primary votes and doubt this is high on Clinton's attack priority list.

    Parent

    Except McCain is zinged by the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    right wing Repubicans for abridging their First Amendment rights to contribute to political campaigns w/o restriction.  Doubt he'll be criticizing Obama.  

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:51:25 PM EST
    He's bringing this up now in attempts to weaken both candidates in the primaries.  I hope Obama is smart enough not to take the bait.

    Parent
    Oh Please (none / 0) (#51)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    Since when as intellectual consistency been a hallmark of a presidential campaign, particularly one being waged by the GOP?

    This idea that X can't be used against Obama because it's unfair or untrue or inconsistent with conservative principles is wrong.  The GOP doesn't care about any of those things.  The only thing they care about it winning.

    Parent

    Good, let them. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    Whether it's Hillary or Barrack, they are going to find  a different kind of opponent.  Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I just am not afraid this time.  This is going to go down as one to remember.

    Parent
    Oops, Untoward idealism creeping (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    in.  You are correct, of course.

    Parent
    what makes you say that? (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycvoter on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:43:15 PM EST
    and if it's true, wouldn't it just be "look Senator Obama has a habit of saying one thing and doing another, or saying he's accomplished something like passing a law that was never passed"  Would that be so bad?  

    Parent
    Yes in a GE that would be horrible! (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    McCain has already done it once when he called him disingenuous for backing out of a promise to support some amendment to an ethics bill in the Senate.

    The kick about Gore was that he was disingenuous, a liar in plainer terms, and the meme on Kerry was he flip-flopped and didn't honor his word.  

    This little thing leads directly into a full-blown attack later in the election cycle.  And it just might work again.


    Parent

    Yes before it's Oboma vs. McCain, but why now? (none / 0) (#29)
    by barryluda on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    I can understand and agree with the reasoning that Obama should not break his pledge when he's going up against McCain for all of the reasons stated above.  But it seems like through March, at least, Obama's more immediate problem is to win the nomination.  Whey wouldn't he also get this "free pass" after Ohio and Texas?

    Not rhetorical, I really don't understand why "NOW" is the only right time.

    I will repeat graf 3 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break the pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain.

    There is no time when Obama's opponent will not be Clinton or McCain. what sort of intermission are you imagining?  

    Parent

    I was just thinking (none / 0) (#42)
    by barryluda on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:46:07 PM EST
    that Texas and Ohio are so important, why not wait until just after.  But is your point that waiting until after that doesn't give enough time for it to blow over?

    I guess in thinking about it I don't agree that there is no risk of it having some impact vs. Clinton.  Maybe it'll taint him a bit, even if the mainstream media doesn't slam him for it (since, according to you, they prefer Clinton over Obama) some voters will hear about it from other sources, say this blog for example.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
    Two reasons for me.

    1, if he beats her, it is over and McCain is his opponent.

    2, the sooner the better.

    Parent

    Got it, thanks. (none / 0) (#52)
    by barryluda on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM EST
    Interesting comment (briefly) posted about McCain being full of [expletive deleted].  Maybe if Obama waits he won't have to back down since McCain will first.  Although, I would think that any hiring of a campaign finance guy is just him covering his bases, and McCain would jump at the chance of giving that up to have equal financial footing.


    Parent
    Because If He Breaks It Now (none / 0) (#33)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    It's unlikely to hurt him in the primary (Hillary has rejected taking public financing, calling it unilateral disarmament by Democrats).

    And by doing it now, it's old news by the time he gets the nomination, assuming he gets it.  

    Yes, there's a risk any negative coverage could hurt him in the primary, but he's much likely to get negative coverage while Hillary is still in the race because the media hate her and would go easier on Obama for fear of helping Hillary.

    Parent

    So now you are repeating my post (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:40:17 PM EST
    as a comment.

    Amazing.

    Parent

    This is one issue that McCain could use against (none / 0) (#44)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    Obama so I agree he should just state right now that he won't accept public funding by the GE campaign this will have blown over.  If he waits for after the nomination the republican mud slingers, and the MSM will say he is a Flip Flop, insincere, etc.

    McCain had ALREADY broken that pledge (none / 0) (#57)
    by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    BEFORE he questioned Obama about this. McCain had already hired on February 12th Mercer Reynolds, who helped Bush raise a record $273 million for the 2004 re-election campaign as someone who will help him raise money for the general election.

    Check out this article

    MCCAIN SIGNS UP A BUSH FUND-RAISING ORGANIZER

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/politics/13mccain.html

    "...Mr. McCain's advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, WOULD NOT ACCEPT PUBLIC FINANCING AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR THIS YEAR'S GENERAL CAMPAIGN."

    Thus McCain is a HYPOCRITE.

    Obama needs to call him on this!!!

    Parent

    No cursing Maritza (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Sorry, I ahd to delete.

    Kos agrees, by the way. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:56:18 PM EST


    With what? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Hmmmm, that Obama should (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:01:23 PM EST
    back away from any idea he'll accept public financing in the GE.  

    Parent
    DRUDGE is reporting this (none / 0) (#62)
    by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    "Flash: McCain advisers will ask White House to deploy president for FUNDRAISING but don't want president to appear too often at McCain's side...developing..."

    Does that look like McCain is opting out of public campaign financing????

    Of course not.  This will be a NON-ISSUE by the general election for it looks like McCain is in full on "raise money for his campaign mode."

    By the time that the Dem nominee is settle, McCain would have raised MILLIONS of dollars and he and Obama will NOT opt for public financing.  McCain will NOT be able to hold this against Obama if he is the nominee.

    I wouldn't worry about it folks.

    BTD (none / 0) (#68)
    by andreww on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    Good point and post.  I'm not sure I agree with your point that he should break the pledge - but if he's going to you're absolutely right - he should do it now.

    Hillary is now leading (none / 0) (#69)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    in Wisconsin by six points, according to today's ARG poll.

    Well.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM EST
    ... 4 other polls have Obama up by anywhere from 4-11 points.

    And if you are really going to use ARG, which has had an awful record this primary season, then you should also point out that they have Obama leading in Texas.

    Parent

    The pledge (none / 0) (#70)
    by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:41:37 PM EST
    was to try work something out with the Republican nominee.  Isn't there a way to sit down with McCain, sabotage any agreement, and then announce that there was no deal?  If that could be accomplished, wouldn't it be preferable to unilaterally breaking the pledge?

    Public financing (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeithPickering on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:04:24 PM EST
    I disagree. Barack can keep his promise and STILL keep all the advantages of his money machine. Here's how: he establishes joint committees with every Democrat running for a GOP-held seat in the Senate. All money raised BY OBAMA in those states can go (legally) to the joint committee, which sends it to the Senate Candidate. He could establish the same thing for House candidates in states with no Senate race. All this is legal under FEC rules.

    The advantage would be that Obama rides into office with a wave of Democrats in the Senate who are behind him all the way. If we're lucky, we could even get up to 60. Wouldn't that be sweet? Hundred days, here we come!

    Let the Media Focus On This For Three Reasons (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Octagon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    1. There is no "St. John McCain" problem.  As rdandrea said, people hate whiners.  "St. John McCain" is what Republicans (especially the Republican media) hate about John McCain in the first place.  No Republican talking head is going to advocate for McCain-Feingold, so the story becomes pretty dull.

    2. The longer Obama waits to make a call on this, and the more grandstanding McCain does, the less effective McCain's fundraising attempts will be once he finally gets off his high horse, IMHO.

    3. The only reason McCain is doing this now is because if he doesn't, he's going to get slammed as a hypocrite during the general.  He had to make a nod towards the legislation that made him famous.  Let it become a topic in the debates, all Obama has to say in response is, "McCain-Feingold has failed this nation and our political system, Senator---" and McCain will jump in and no one will listen to what he's saying, they'll just watch him be unpresidential, or at least overly technical, which pushes people away.


    the Joe Biden problem (none / 0) (#85)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    And if the media are still telling us about the Joe Biden plagiarism...years and years later...and further telling us that such plagiarism has prevented Senator Biden from ever being taken  seriously as a candidate for President...then what can we surmise about Senator Obama, orator extraordinaire?  The Real Thing?  After all, it's common knowledge that Gore was a liar..what with his internet story and Love Story, etc..because that type of fibbing (though of course none of these claims about Gore were actually true) reflects on CHARACTER  issues.  So what does this say about the character of  our budding JFK?  Should we ask Senator Kennedy?  Perhaps this is routine...perhaps Senator Kennedy can tell us if either of his brothers were in fact cribbing the speeches of other politicians of their time?  Inquiring minds want to know.

    Deval Patrick, who previously (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:25:41 AM EST
    endorsed Obama, sd. its o.k. with him.  

    Parent
    Is that how one avoids PLAGIARISM? (none / 0) (#99)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:16:14 AM EST
    Maybe we should rehash the Joe Biden story...and compare...when does plagiarism become plagiarism...?  Maybe we can query some Columbia journalism profs and see if a failure to attribute insulates one from a charge of plagiarism...if the one plagiarized consents to it after the fact. Problem is...the entire campaign theme was hijacked..and To plagiarize or not to plagiarize becomes less important than the fraud of it all...the hoax...the con...the making fools of... the gullible liberal and progressives...the MoveOn disease....Big Tent Democrat gets the big picture...this is so incredibly damaging to the entire MOVEMENT and it is instructive on the perils of abandoning intellectual honesty in pursuit of an ends justify means mind set.  But I'm guessing BTD will have more illuminating thoughts to thrill us with...But he was right all along..about the movement vs. the personality...and he has maintained all along, his intellectual honesty.

    Parent
    YouTube Video: Obama and Deval Patrick Speeches (none / 0) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:41:08 AM EST
    ******************
    Just Words. Just not Obama's.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

    Here's a video from YouTube with a split screen comparison where Obama rips-off an old speech by his old friend, and super-delegate endorser, Deval Patrick.

    FYI, Patrick is Governor of the State of Massachusetts; a state which chose Clinton - despite the fact that two other MA super-delegates (Uncle Ted and Kerry) also endorsed Obama.  

    Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, also managed Patrick's Gubernatorial campaign.

    Small world.


    Parent

    thanks for the YOUTUBE link (none / 0) (#101)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#107)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    also pulled if off coming up through the caucuses in the States his opponent was preferred by the Mass Dems, well known and favored to win the Dem Primary.  Sure Axelrod was involved same way, but so were Kerry and Kennedy the reincarnation of my dead brother both my dead brothers and none of this could have happened without them recall the Kerry speech that was so offensive where it was clear he had decided to enthrone his Axelrod nominee. Seems like a shell game doesn't it that's because it is, Senator Clinton won the Mass primary by whopping 15 percent that because they are living with Kennedy political stuntry.

    Parent
    thats becuse its not his either (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:40:10 AM EST


    Parent
    The point is mute (none / 0) (#105)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    hopefully, as Senator Clinton has not pledged and as a women she will need to introduce herself in many ways a white male like McCain a package war hero would not and with the full chorus of a chafing Press core cheerleading him on.  Republicans also appear better at the rabid 527s slander but of course the Progressive Dem Bloggers are becoming as unhinged so maybe both sides are now even on the undignified tripe machine.

    Parent
    527s (none / 0) (#109)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    Even if both Dem and Repub nominees relied on public money, the Swiftboater types would be in full attack mode all election season against Hill or Barack. It would be perfectly reasonable to point to the Swiftboat experience and say, "hey, we need to be able to field as many ads as necessary to beat down the lies your 527s have a record of advertising."

    Forgive my ignorance (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:40:06 AM EST
    but I just don't enough about public financing to appreciate this good debate.  Can someone please explain public financing and how it comes into play on why McCain is asking Obama to stick to an agreement.  If i knew more about public financing then I could follow this debate more clearly.  Thanks.

    Here is (none / 0) (#113)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    a link to some info...

    Campaign finance

    Read and learn.

    Parent

    Historically speaking the (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:11:33 AM EST
    Republicans usually get most of the campaign donations because they are easier to buy ;)  Bush has everything so Fubar though right now that a jaw dropping event has taken place and the Dem candidates are literally having money thrown at them the likes they've never seen before.  I haven't seen recent figures on who raised what money but the Dems this cycle have out raised the Republicans at mind boggling levels.  It is a perfect time not likely to get anymore perfect to completely whip the Republicans with a pageantry machine of their own design and soften them up in working towards public financed elections. In our current social structures a politician needs to spend money to get noticed enough by the people.  It's really sad and races are more like pageants and the issues get hard to find when you are on the streets with the common folk.  If elections were public financed then they would become about the issues.  It is scary for Republicans though because they've usually had so much money to buy votes with that they have often been able to hide the issues behind all the hoopla and pageantry.

    Parent
    Yeah baby (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:59:09 AM EST
    Let's let Kumbaya change nothing and enable the same old horror to continue into my children's lifetimes!  This is what I cannot stand about Obama!  When wrong has taken place bordering on insane crazy severe disenfranchising wrong, CHANGE MUST HAPPEN NOW and everything that he is doing is ensuring that change won't happen now and maybe not ever.  Will the Dems ever be sitting in this catbird seat ever again and hold the cards that could bring about REAL CHANGE?  If Republicans aren't inspired right down to their toes and wallets to come with us to the land of public financed elections today period and forever more.............  But Kumbaya is going to make everything all better so I just need to shut up.  I obviously just like to fight. I'm going to go do something more productive than Obama today and herd some dust bunnies before I get a migraine.

    McCain may have no choice (none / 0) (#115)
    by beal on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    I've seen several articles suggesting that McCain may have inadvertently committed himself to public financing by taking out loans using public financing as collateral. See
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639.html
    If this is the case, his call for  Obama  to honor the pledge is only ment to cover his weakness and Obama should never agree.  Likewise McCain's current fundraising may be illegal.

    Break The Public Financing Pledge Now Sen. Obama | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment