I'm happy to defer to Mark Schmitt who used to work on this dreary subject full-time on all issues related to campaign finance, so check out his take here. Basically, Obama has not, in fact, pledged himself to take public funds in the general election and McCain is pulling some shady stunts regarding the primary.
« The Contested Black Vote | Main | Lying all the Way »
Obama, McCain, Public Financing, Etc.
17 Feb 2008 05:20 pm
Comments (72)
Yep, McCain and Clinton are both lying when they attack Obama for supposedly pledging to take public funds. He never made that pledge. They are lying, plain and simple.
Right because our Lord and Savior Jesus... err I mean Barack Obama, never does anything wrong or dishonest, that's only that satanist witch Hillary Clinton.
I thought I'd just get that out of the way before Obama supporters chime in with their usual uncritical pablum.
It is interesting that he's being tag-teamed by both Hillary and McCain at the same time on this. Not clear why Hillary is working so hard to be "John McCain light".
Hillary's been so good about keeping pledges. Like not having the delegates from MI and FL count. Right?
Presumably mccain is just making shit up to try to mitigate against the huge funding advantage the Democratic nominee is gonna have.
Jake:
Your candidate is the one up on his high horse pontificating about honesty and a new kind of politics, not mine.
Exactly why is Hillary Clinton teaming up with John McCain to advance a campaign attack that, if successful, would diminish the current fund-raising advantage of the likely Democratic nominee against John McCain? Is she hoping Obama will lose in 2008 so that she can run in 2012?
LOL. So as long as a candidate doesn't talk about honesty, they can be dishonest all they want. This reminds me of Edwards being criticized for his wealth and spending just because he got on his high horse and talked about helping the poor, while others escaped the same scrutiny. It's ridiculous.
Mike:
Yes, exactly. Unlike many Obama supporters such as yourself I have a realistic, clear-eyed perspective on what politics is all about and who my preferred candidate is. I don't think Hillary Clinton is sopme transcendental figure who is "blessed with such personal greatness" that she has been chosen to "save the country in its hour of need." The truth is when you hold yourself up to an impossible standard then its your own fault. I'm not going to be shy about holding Obama to the kind of ridiculous standard he has set out for himself.
Tim K has affected to be troubled by what he is pleased to suggest is Obama's lack of integrity on the subject of public campaign financing, and I wondered what his response might be to Mark Schmitt's densely argued critique.
I see Tim K's counterargument is the "Hillary Supporter's Imputation of the Obama Supporter's Belief in the Infallibility of Obama" riposte that some slob left on the shelf.
I have a realistic, clear-eyed perspective on what politics is all about and who my preferred candidate is
Translation: I fully expect my candidate to blatantly lie and if she's not she's not trying hard enough.
I can't believe Hillary has jumped in on this. Her money comes from lobbyists and PACs and she has the nerve to call Obama out? She has been doing the same things with the issues. On the nuclear bill, praised it in 2006. On his environmental bill, praised it.
It is all lying politics, and seems to me why Obama is such an attraction. This is the other part of the Clinton strategy that they have yet to abandon. Obama knew it would be a protracted campaign, so most of his statements and assertions hold up to the facts. While Hillary's campaign expected it to be over quick, meaning people wouldn't delve into the details, and should could make typical false assertions. Now that reporters don't have anything to write about, or that the TV shows can't rehash the same stories, voters are more informed than ever. Hillary needs to adapt quick.
http://www.politicalinaction.com
Your candidate is the one up on his high horse pontificating about honesty and a new kind of politics, not mine.
tee hee.
though it's too bad Tim K probably wasn't trying to be funny with that.
The fact that a lot of people seem to brush off anything Obama does by pointing fingers at McCain or Clinton is pretty telling, actually. It's also getting very old.
Why not take public funds for the general? It's $85 million for two months and a week or $40 M per month. That's about the maximum Kerry managed to raise in any given month of the 2004 campaign.
Obama can raise $300 M up to August and spend it on infrastructure and organizing and then coast home on public funding.
That will save about $80 M more for local and congressional races that we need to win if President Obama is going to be able to push any progressive agenda through D. C.
Can some obama supporter actually provide a quote that clinton said MI and FL shouldn't get delegates? She said she wouldn't campaign (and she didn't - unlike obama) but I have seen no evidence that she pledged they would not be seated. Methinks some obama supporters are guilty of what they are accusing clinton of.
Tim K,
Would you mind responding to Schmitt's argument?
I described this a few weeks ago as a "pledge" to participate, but I should not have. Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.
How is that wrong?
Impatient McCain and Clinton campaigns
What is wrong in Sen. Obama saying that he will not comment about public financing until he knows for sure that he is the nominee and the other party is ready to accept the limit too? When he made the commitment originally, it was contingent on other party to accept as well.
Then why Sen. McCain’s campaign is going berserk and saying that Obama campaign is reneging their commitment? Is it not fair to wait until we cross that bridge and then decide about that? Or is the expectation from these competing candidates is that Obama should simply implode his roaring campaign by accepting financial limits while others rake in the money?
The height of shamelessness is by the Clinton campaign. All along they played the politics of ‘fund raiser’; raised millions via special interests; never committed for public financing; even now they will not talk about that – but want to criticize Obama campaign because it is not accepting public financing now. It seems Clinton campaign does even know how to be truthful at minimum degree. We all know that Clinton is under pressure to win elections. But that does not mean she could throw any ‘mud’ on competitor with the hope that something will stick? Here we have Bill Clinton visiting Silicon Valley shamelessly wandering California with a begging bowl, but they want Obama campaign to criticize for not accepting public finance while Clinton campaign itself shouting that Dem nomination process is not done? Should we say that ‘sure Obama campaign will commit for public financing provided McCain does’ if Clinton quits the nomination race? It seems Clintons have totally given up ‘logic’ to wind and want to wage totally gutter and shrill election campaign. Shame on Clintons.
It was also presumptuous of Washington Post to write editorial about this when the issue is still in future and the basic nomination fight is not done. No wonder public thinks these newspapers are irresponsible – writing editorials about the issue which is not relevant while ignoring many other important issues.
I'm an ardent Obamaphile. Total Kool-Aid drinker. I'm picking up my Shephard Fairey Hope poster from the framers on Tuesday.
But here's the thing. I'm not interested in parsing Obama's pledge. I don't care if he definitively agreed to enter into an agreement with McCain to defer to public financing. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But that's not really the point:
I know my guy would be forfeiting a gi-normous advantage by accepting public funds and foregoing private contributions. But that's why I'm supporting Obama -- because he's precisely the kind of candidate who'd make that sacrifice. I want the Obama who'd lay down his superior weaponry and fight the campaign armed with his superior platform and leadership -- even if it means he has to leave money on the table.
Schmitt is probably right, though the issue is far too arcane for me to understand. Nevertheless, I'll be deeply disappointed if Obama doesn't embrace a far superior system of campaign finance for the general election. Even if McCain is lying. Even if he'd ostensibly be crazy to do so.
That's what leadership is: Sacrificing interest for principle.
1) I curious about who's started pumping money into McCain's campaign the last few weeks. I mean, face it -- the smart money knows that Huckabee is just one McCain temper tantrum/stroke away from the Republican nomination -- at which point we have Christian Socialism taking over.
2) The only way around that is if someone --and his patrons -- has a lock on running as McCain's VP. Any ideas out there on who that could be?
I know McCain's money is coming from about 23 major lobbyists -- but this bundling shit makes it hard to determine the real source.
Schmitt is probably right, though the issue is far too arcane for me to understand. Nevertheless, I'll be deeply disappointed if Obama doesn't embrace a far superior system of campaign finance for the general election. Even if McCain is lying. Even if he'd ostensibly be crazy to do so.
I can certainly sympathize with this emotion. Still, I think you've got to recognize that McCain (with Clinton's assistance) is goading and bullying Obama in the hopes he'll make a premature concession.
What Obama said--as far as I know what he's consistently said--is that he wanted to preserve the option of public financing so that, once he's the nominee, he could pursue a negotiated agreement with the Repulican candidate. McCain is now asking Obama to "honor his pledge" by agreeing to accept public financing without a negotiation and before he's the nominee. But that wasn't Obama's pledge at all.
McCain and Clinton are seeking to weaken Obama, and he's right to resist them. He hasn't pledged to do anything about public financing until he becomes the nominee, and until that day comes, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
McCain is holding the high moral ground here.
Obama should agree to keep his 'pledge', however
weak, to campaign with public funds as long as that is what McCain still agrees to do.
columbia
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
She didnt say a thing about wanting to seat MI/FL, or "the voters should be heard" type of thing, until after she realized that she might actually need those states to win. She is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, and there is no other way of looking at it.
Gus - I would hardly say that is a "pledge" but it also was only about Michigan. And at his florida press conference (in violation of the no campaigning pledge), obama said he'd work to seat the fl delegates. Wonder why that changed?
I think McCain's comments are quite clearly nothing but gamesmanship, and I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't been called out. He challenges Obama to agree to his "pledge" to take public money if his opponent does so." Disregarding Schmitt's point that no pledge was ever made, McCain's point is meaningless because he himself hasn't yet accepted public money. If he does so first, then he could have some claim to to demand Obama live up to any pledge. All anyone has to say to Mac is this: Obama said he'd take public money if you do, but since you haven't yet made that pledge yourself, what grounds do you have to insist that he respond to action that hasn't been taken yet?
On purely this level McCain's stance is empty. Yet Obama seems to be doing the right thing to appeal to a higher level of argument because to argue on this plane would be to tacitly acknowledge that a pledge had been made. Still though, the press should be on this lower plane because one of the functions of the press is, or should be, to press McCain on what is clearly a very simple and very obvious point.
Obama: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Aggressively. Ouch.
He'll take a hit if he does opt out, because honestly, if a certain other candidate left in this race said that, and then opted out...well, some people here might refer to the quote as "Clintonion".
My advice: opt out, he'll raise an incredible amount of money, and this election is a lot more important than goo-goo arguments about money in politics.
honestly, if a certain other candidate left in this race said that, and then opted out...well, some people here might refer to the quote as "Clintonion".
Check this out Andruw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dm8MR8R68o
She said something like "public financing is the way to go." Clintonian indeed.
Not withstanding any merits or lack thereof to public financing, I'm finding this whole thing to be rather funny. Of course mccain's argument is specious and the media is being very unfair. But this is the first time the obama folks are feeling what clinton supporters a have felt for six months. Not so fun when someone else is the golden child, is it?
Jake: Of course, you don't address the subject of the post, or the Obama quote. Or my point. Or anything really. Well, except HRC sux.
When HRC is debating McCain about public financing, I promise to return to your YouTube.
Of course, you don't address the subject of the post, or the Obama quote. Or my point. Or anything really. -Andruw
You had a point? ;=)
Ahm, OK. I think there's a key thing in the Obama quote. There's the "IF I am the Democratic nominee.." Seeing as how he's not the nominee yet, the whole thing seems a bit moot at this point.
But OK, let's assume he is and he does opt out. Agreed - he'll take a hit, and I think he should. Big deal.
Sorry I was out for awhile so didn't get a chance to respond to much of this until now.
The Obama campaign's line was factually accurate in as far as Bill Clinton was being factually accurate in saying he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I think every one knows what Obama's statement on public financing was meaning to convey. McCain has agreed to publicly finance, so according to what Obama said he is now honor bound to stay in the system. I don't think voters were meant to take away from Obama's artful statement that he was planning to enter into negotiation with the Republican nominee is bad faith and find some reason to opt out anyways. I think by the Obama campaigns own standards that would be an example of the "old politics."
Brian:
Why should I get exercised by the fact Clinton takes PAC money? I suggest you read a book by Professor Tom Ferguson called The Golden Rule. Every President in the modern era has been largely funded by powerful business special interests (railways, bankers, investors, the textile industry, real estate, etc...) and that includes FDR, LBJ and JFK. That didn't stop the New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, or all the other positive changes enacted by Democratic (and Republican) presidents.
Besides, Obama has taken money from corporations and employs lobbyists. And he's carried water for Illinois based conglomerates like Exelon.
McCain has agreed to publicly finance
No, actually he hasn't. He's only stated that IF BO agrees to publicly finance then he will. He hasn't said, for example, that he will publicly finance and expects BO to do the same if he's elected the nominee. It's completely different.
McCain has agreed to publicly finance, so according to what Obama said he is now honor bound to stay in the system.
Literally nothing about this is true.
* McCain has not committed himself to publicly finance.
* According to what Obama said, he's not bound to do anything unless and until he's the Democratic nominee. Of all people, Tim K should know that's not a foregone conclusion.
* If Obama does win the nomination, he will be honor bound to negotiate in good faith with McCain. Obama is emphatically not honor bound to submit to McCain/Clinton bullying in the middle of a hotly contested primary race, and no one would think better of him if he did.
Jake: "Agreed - he'll take a hit, and I think he should. Big deal."
Exactly, my point was there will be a hit. Get ready to fight back against this guy (McCain), and his MSM fluffers; its what this campaign will be about.
Who would be stupid enough to commit to public financing even if your opponent opted out? That's unilateral disarmament.
Obama did not say that he would make McCain an offer to stick to donations of $200 and under, for example, as I've heard suggested. That would not be negotiating in good faith.
Face it, Obama is waffling.
Tim K, how I wish you would not share my name!
Speaking of things I find disgusting, here's one person I would like never to see near the White House (or at all) again: Lanny Davis. Thank God THAT's not my name.
The idea of a White House "Special Counsel" whose talent is memorizing as many misleading one-liners as possible and projectile vomiting them at Wolff Blitzer is one stark reminder of exactly why a return the Clinton years will achieve next to nothing but infuriate nearly everyone.
Face it, Obama is waffling.
Nah, more like he knows that if he committed to it now, Hillary would find a way to use it against him. She'd say something like "I'm the only one who can beat McCain because I won't be relying on public financing" or some such BS.
In a way I can't wait until the Obama administration. Although pointing out all the ways it won't meet the expectations set out in the campaign will be a full time job.
Jake:
Then he shouldn't have made the commitment or the misleading statement implying commitment, should he have? Hence the reason Hillary didn't make the same mistake.
Although pointing out all the ways it won't meet the expectations set out in the campaign will be a full time job.
Maybe you could intern for Rush Limbaugh.
columbia, you can't really be serious about Hillary's claim to the uncontested MI and FL primaries. Neither Obama nor Edwards had his name on the ballot, for God's sake.
What Obama has said about superdelegates tracks with what he has said about FL and MI all along: have a primary, then seat the pledged delegates. In the end, superdelegates can vote their consciences, but it would be a wierd conscience indeed that would overturn the will of the voters.
This stance might end up biting Obama in the end, if FL and MI go for HRC in a legit primary, but at least it's honest and in the spirit of democratic elections.
Fuck McCain- let him stew in his own juices. Obama would be smart not to concede one inch to the salty old flea-bitten dog over anything. And, because he is tres smart- I'll bet he won't.
He just keeps getting better and better- doesn't he? By the time the general starts- he'll be Ali in his prime going against Joe Lieberman's stooge. Sure, it's wishful thinking, but this is the greatest candidate the country's had since Bobby Kennedy and the way things are aligned and given his talent- he may very well be able to kick The Manchurian Candidate's ass from all over this great land.
Jake:
Oh so if I don't support Obama I must be a right-wing conservative Republican? Is that what this comes down to? Ad hominem attacks?
Whatever happened to the Politics of Hope?
"In a way I can't wait until the Obama administration. Although pointing out all the ways it won't meet the expectations set out in the campaign will be a full time job.
Posted by Tim K | February 17, 2008 10:48 PM"
Tim K, this is disturbing. Many Clinton supporters (such as myself) have noted the blind devotion of Obama supporters, but if he wins, I will absolutely point out, from day one, all the BS, MSM/GOP attacks.
Andruw:
I never said I'd wish him failure on making progress on real issues. But not on these silly fairy tale commitments like "doing politics differently" and "politics of hope."
Now that Mccain has stitched up the nom he is campaigning for hillary. nothing is as comfortable as playing your respective role. i don't think he relishes the prospect of a run against obama, but hillary--the senate's presiding patron saint of the woodstock museum and all things hippy. He could have a stroke and still make a go of it. and no doubt the feeling is mutual. And Hillary for her part seems more comfortable now that she knows the only other person between her and the White House, now that she can hang a face on the boogeyman that is the vast right wing conspiracy. so is the quid pro quo so hard to imagine....
Somewhere in Virginia:
H: You know you'd rather run against me, John, help me out.
Mac: What can I do for you?
H: remind the party elders that our uppity holier than thou colleague pledged to give up the best fundraising advantage the party has ever had.
Mac: Anything I can do to kneecap that little jerk would be my pleasure.
The sad truth here is that if Obama did lock John into public funding limits, the money that is getting vaccumed up by the presidential campaigns on the dem side would probably go to local races--mayors, congressman, senators. And the local races is where the dems really need it, wher the organization and networks need to be built, and where the RNCC's moth-to-the-candle-esque fascination with corruption has their whole machine stuck in neutral. Paging, Adam Putnam.
But who would be so reckless as to assume that the Clintons would put their party's interests before their own? That would never ever happen. This is just crazy talk....
Tim K, Obama addressed your complaint last night in Wisconsin: these "hope" and "change" concepts actually mean something, and it is the antithesis of what Clinton's campaign is about.
You are making fun of a guy who is bothering to swim against the tide of corruption. Pardon the rest of us if we don't find your viewpoint, and that of McCain and Clinton, the least bit inspiring.
Basically, you are saying we should just give up and leave the country to be run by an elaborate system of kickback schemes. Not ok, buddy, not fucking ok.
T.K:
Just because Obama says they mean something, don't mean they do.
I don't care about being inspired. If you want to be inspired go to Church, or go to a motivational seminar.
Politics to me is about achieving progress on substantial issues from climate change, to universal health care, to diplomacy. None of that requires having a fainting spell in an aisle, yelling "YES WE CAN" or doing a lot of hoping.
Speaking of Obama, Obamatons may be interested in this by Peter Hitchens of The Daily Mail: "The Black Kennedy".
"Obamatons may be interested in this by Peter Hitchens"
Probably not.
Being the most sane Hitchens is not really much of a prize in 2008.
I don't care about being inspired. If you want to be inspired go to Church, or go to a motivational seminar.
Politics to me is about achieving progress on substantial issues from climate change, to universal health care, to diplomacy. None of that requires having a fainting spell in an aisle, yelling "YES WE CAN" or doing a lot of hoping.
You gotta be kidding me. What a cold and unappealing world view.
"Politics to me is about achieving progress on substantial issues from climate change, to universal health care, to diplomacy." Boring. Vague.
I opened the Hitchens piece and my browser wigged out and scrolled all the way to the bottom of the page. I started scrolling to start reading it and saw this phrase toward the bottom:
"the perceptive Peggy Noonan"
So, uh, take the article with a Mount Rushmore-sized grain of salt.
Reality isn't always sexy. Why do you think fiction exists?
Having a drab worldview isn't the same thing as being realistic, just like how leadership is taking good, unpopular positions, not bad, unpopular ones like drowning puppies or losing a major American city to a hurricane. Don't confuse being smart with being a social leper.
I don't care about being inspired. If you want to be inspired go to Church, or go to a motivational seminar.
Perhaps you don't care much about winning elections, either.
I'm not confused. You sound like Obama. Always implying that people who disagree with him are misunderstanding. That's why he is constantly saying "Understand what we're talking about here" or "Understand the distinction".... understand, understand, understand. We understand, Barack, we just don't agree.
Just people I don't get exercised over intangible forces doesn't make my world-view drab. I just get excited when real things are happening, not just being talked about in a speech.
How is talking about a "politics of hope" any better than calling for "world peace" or "free love" ... what do any of these things mean. Why not offer all 4 of the Advent Candles. Let's not limit ourselves to the old ways.
Well, then, Tim K, I'll be quite specific. On health care, I find Obama's approach vastly more realistic and therefore hopeful. He starts with something you might be able to get through Congress in your first couple months in office, if that's your focus.
Despite the "15 million" number Clinton's plants have been chanting at every opportunity, this gets us a hell of lot further than a plan that fails out of gate. Now, if Clinton really believed she could mandate universal coverage, I would be all for her trying. Hopefully we'll get there one day.
But she doesn't believe it. She is claiming for purposes of the Dem primary that she'll go for what most Dems want. If she gets elected, she'll make a show of beating her head against a wall of Republican resistance to mandated universal coverage for months, blame them for the lack of progress, then compromise on something that (at best) would look something like Obama's plan looks now. But her showmanship would likely invite a backlash that would kill the attempt at reform altogether. Sound familiar?
Obama is being honest about his policy, since he is advocating now exactly what he reasonably believes he has a good chance of achieving when he enters office. This sort of honesty is part of gaining the trust of the country. That's the "change" at work.
Ironic, then, that Hillary, while knowingly lying about her expectations to appease her own party now, could claim that Obama's hopes are false ones.
Arbitrary soundbite numbers like "15 million uninsured" do not policy specifics make, nor do they constitute getting anything done. Leadership and a reasonable approach to politics get things done, despite people like Clintons.
TK:
Well the only evidence Hillary is "knowingly lying" about her health care plan is your uncorroborated claim. And that's not very convincing. A mandate of some form is the only way to achieve universal coverage. That's why Obama's plan includes a mandate for children. Presumably he will have some way of enforcing his mandate just as Hillary will enforcing hers.
As an aside, Obama makes the argument that a mandate for all Americans is not necessary because the only reason anyone doesn't buy health care is because they cannot afford it. There are a number of problems with his argument: We know for a fact that there are people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it. These people are free-riders who impose a hidden tax on the rest of society.
Also, if affordability is the only reason for the uninsured then why would a mandate to cover children be necessary at all? Why not just offer the subsidies? Is Obama saying that there are parents who would deliberately withhold coverage from their own children?
And once again, on enforceability, if Obama's mandate is enforceable then so is Hillary's.
Mandates work for car insurance, why can't they work for health insurance?
Plus, what's the worst that can happen if we go for a mandate? The mandate doesn't survive in the final plan? Then we'll just be left with the Obama plan. But if a mandate isn't proposed from the beginning there is zero chance of achieving universality.
And there we have the crux of our disagreement, in two parts. 1) You and I disagree on legislative strategy and 2) I am focussed on the integrity of the legislative process and believe the character of a man committed to openly dealing with the lack of it can make a real difference. HOW legislation is passed is as important as the name on the bill, precisely because the HOW of it is where the bill gets saddled with provisions that eviscerate its stated purpose by cow-towing to special interests. And in health care, if you don't think special interests ARE the whole problem, you are in a coma.
Ultimately, if you care about HOW things are done, you have to make a character judgment and go with the candidate you think is more likely to take a stand on how things are done once he is in power. That's the job I want done, and I am proud to say that one man is running whom I trust to do that job if elected. His name is not Hillary.
Yeah Tim K, grim duty will get our voters to the polls in November.
That's the ticket.
With children, you can enforce the mandate through vaccinations,which are mandatory. Children cannot register into school unless they've been vaccinated. Another way is compulsory schooling. I think that people will voluntarily sign up if there's intensive outreach of some sort. There are a lot of government programs out there but the American public doesn't know because the gov't doesn't make them known to the public.
Wow, Tim K...another dipshit heard from.
I don't buy Schmitt's argument, Matt.
Perhaps we need to actually go back to who said what when the so-called "pledge" was made but the point remains that everyone, Schmitt and the various McCain-loving editorial boards included, thought at that time that Obama was making a pledge. It was Obama's duty then to specify exactly what pledge he was making, instead, it seems to me that he didn't disabuse them of their (mis)interpretation but in fact basked in all the appreciation that came his way. So yes, I'd say he "waffled" on this.
Oh so if I don't support Obama I must be a right-wing conservative Republican? Is that what this comes down to? Ad hominem attacks?-Tim K
Wow, you're awfully thin-skinned for an HRC supporter. I was joking: grow a soul.
None of that requires having a fainting spell in an aisle, yelling "YES WE CAN" or doing a lot of hoping-Tim K
It's a campaign slogan. If you really think Obama or his supporters believe it will be his philosophy for governing, well, have fun eating your straw man.
Yeah Tim K, grim duty will get our voters to the polls in November.
It worked so well for Kerry- er- Gore- uh- Dukakis- um...
Nah, there wasn't any sort of pledge.
Question I-B:
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 the presidential public financing system?
Yes ___ No ___
OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. ... In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
Nor was it reported at the time.
WASHINGTON, March 1 — Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination. ...
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, “We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”
No pledges.
Thank you, Ben.
Primary sources...they really do work.
I hope Obama does honor the pledge, when he is the nominee.
A sidenote, Obama's responses in the survey seemed more detailed than HRC's. Anyone else notice that?
Paul:
So why doesn't Obama commit right now to honor the pledge if he becomes the nominee?
Hypocrite alert! McCain has been getting shady loans and using public finance as collateral!
Is what McCain did legal? It certainly is an abuse of the system:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_campaign_banked_on_taxp.php
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
Comments closed March 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
oh fer fuck's sake. why can't we move this election up to next Tuesday, and be done with it? why do we subject ourselves to nine more months of this stupid bickering ?
Posted by cleek | February 17, 2008 5:35 PM