Force McSame to keep his word.

[huisjen]

First he says he wants Federal Matching funds.

Then he says he wants to opt out, after he's got the money.

He can't have it both ways.

http://www.democrats.org/FECpetition

[Vince Brennan]

He's a career politician! Of COURSE he can have it both ways!

[C. Ross]

Democrats.org is a great, unbiased source for information on Republicans.

This is an old, tired story. Norman and I whacked at each other on this one a couple of months ago.

Does Democrats.org point out Sen. Obama's pledge and retraction on the same issue?

[Norman Bernstein]

Democrats.org is a great, unbiased source for information on Republicans.

This is an old, tired story. Norman and I whacked at each other on this one a couple of months ago.

Does Democrats.org point out Sen. Obama's pledge and retraction on the same issue?


I'm not signing the petition... because it's silly and sophomoric....

....but sorry to say it again, Cris....McCain did indeed try to 'game' the system.

[Pierce Nichols]

Democrats.org is a great, unbiased source for information on Republicans.

This is an old, tired story. Norman and I whacked at each other on this one a couple of months ago.

Does Democrats.org point out Sen. Obama's pledge and retraction on the same issue?

Very different set of circumstances. McCain took out a campaign loan against future matching funds. That, under the rules, legally binds him into that system. Obama pledged to take them if his opponent did, but I think McCain's gamesmanship effectively releases him from that pledge.

[C. Ross]

....but sorry to say it again, Cris....McCain did indeed try to 'game' the system.

...and Sen. Obama reneged on his pledge to accept public financing.

There are so many good, substantive differences between these candidates, on issues that will really make a difference to the American people, that I find these Punch and Judy attacks, by both sides, silly.

Like I'm going to vote for Sen Obama because of Sen. McCain's campaign financing. Or I'm going to vote for Sen. McCain because of Sen Obama's relationships in Chicago.

Or, maybe I could vote my real views on war and peace, or economics. Sheesh.

(Nice to bump into you again, Mr. Bernstein....)

[C. Ross]

... I think McCain's gamesmanship effectively releases him from that pledge.

Maybe. But the reason why Sen. Obama has rejected public financing has 95% to do with his impressive ability to fund-raise, far in excess of McCain, and maybe 5% to do with how McCain floated a loan in New Hampshire.

[Keith Wilson]

There are so many good, substantive differences between these candidates, on issues that will really make a difference to the American people, that I find these Punch and Judy attacks, by both sides, silly.
I completely agree.

[Norman Bernstein]

...and Sen. Obama reneged on his pledge to accept public financing.

Obama made no such pledge. His pledge was to consider it...not to invariably accept it.

(Parry and thrust, Cris!)

[C. Ross]

This is the most neutral article I could find, which explains both candidate's motivations fairly, I think. And it's only 4 days old, and traces the roots of this maneuvering back to March 2007 and its various permutations since. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a9UgUJQUGwq0

(Partisan fun: Oopsie, why, there's no mention of McCain's loan as the reason behind Obama's unwillingness to give up his warchest. Hmmmm....maybe the party has a "petition" going to distract from the real change in position....?)

OK. I'm done with that. But it was fun.



Obama Risks `Pristine' Image in Question of Public Financing

By Kristin Jensen and Jonathan D. Salant
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iHPPyS2vxhGQ
http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/enlarge_details.gif (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=photos&sid=a9UgUJQUGwq0)

June 13 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama learned the pitfalls of claiming the moral high ground this week when a top adviser resigned under pressure. His next challenge is whether to forfeit a huge financial edge over Republican John McCain or renege on a promise to accept public-funding limits.
Obama pledged in March 2007 to pursue an agreement with the Republicans to participate in the public-financing system, which is designed to limit the influence of big money. That was before he began shattering private-fundraising records.
Strategists from both parties say the presumptive Democratic nominee would have an advantage of more than $100 million in the general election if he declines public money and its spending restrictions. The question is how much criticism he'd take for becoming the first presidential candidate to opt out of the system, which dates back to the Watergate era.
``The pressure once again is to prove that he's a different politician,'' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's primary campaign this year. Backing out would have ``all the elements of hypocrisy and expediency that could hurt this pristine brand that he tries to promote.''
The issue may have special resonance because both Obama and McCain are vying to be seen as reformers. Five aides have been forced out of McCain's campaign because of special-interest ties, and former Fannie Mae Chairman James Johnson quit Obama's vice presidential search committee on June 11 after reports that he may have received preferential mortgage terms from Countrywide Financial Corp.
Using the Issue
McCain has signaled he will use the public-financing issue against Obama.
In March 2007, McCain's campaign said the candidate would accept public money if the Democratic nominee did. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said his candidate would ``aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.''
By February 2008, the Obama campaign said public financing was only an ``option.'' Obama has refused to be pinned down on whether he'll participate, citing concerns about the effects of outside political groups that can raise millions and aren't controlled by campaigns.
``That's Washington double-speak,'' McCain responded. ``That's not transparency, nor is it keeping one's word to the American people.''
Minimal Damage?
Some strategists say the public-opinion damage may be minimal if Obama raises his own money for the election. And the advantages will be so great, they say, that they can't see how he would accept public financing.
``He'd be crazy to do it,'' said Lynn Cutler, a former vice chairwoman at the Democratic National Committee.
Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, has raised almost three times as much as McCain, 71, an Arizona senator. The downside for Obama is that the national party coffers traditionally filled by the DNC lag behind the Republican National Committee.
That matters because the two party committees act as shadow campaigns, doing their own advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. A shortfall in DNC fundraising would hurt Obama even as his own campaign tops McCain's. At the end of April, Obama had a cash edge of $15 million over McCain; the RNC exceeded the DNC by $36 million.
Closing the Gap
Republican and Democratic strategists said they don't expect that disparity to last. Obama is sending staffers over to the DNC and should be able to help the committee raise as much money as the RNC, while his own campaign collects and spends at least $100 million more than McCain before the nominating conventions, they said.
``A lot of Obama's contributors have no identification with the sense of being a Democrat,'' said Eddie Mahe, a former deputy RNC chairman. ``They are Obama supporters. With communication from him, `You are doing this for me,' I think he can raise all the money he needs.''
The big question for Obama centers on the two months between the nominating conventions and the Nov. 4 election. If both he and McCain take public financing, each will get about $85 million to spend in that time.
They would also continue raising money for their party committees during that period. And Obama would probably push the DNC's money total over the RNC's if he focused his fundraising efforts only on the committee.
Still, by accepting public financing, Obama might not be able to raise as much money for the DNC as he would for his own campaign and wouldn't be able to coordinate spending efforts.
$500 Million
Should he opt to raise money privately, Obama could bring in as much as $500 million in the two-month general-election campaign, predicted Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. McCain has never raised more than $22 million in a month.
While others have lower estimates for Obama's fundraising, all expect him to outmatch McCain. That's because his list of donors tops 1.5 million and he's gotten a flood of contributions on the Internet.
``It's been an extraordinarily broad-based grassroots effort,'' said Roger Altman, a former deputy Treasury secretary who was a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter. Now that Obama is the nominee, he said, his ability to ``raise enormous sums going forward is huge.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net (kjensen@bloomberg.net) ; Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net (jsalant@bloomberg.net)

[C. Ross]

What I'm really hoping is that this "town hall debate" thing will happen. Sen. Obama is unequalled as an orator, but he's not such a great extemporaneous speaker. Sen. McCain has a couple of decades worth of sharpening in the Senate, and if you read him in the Congressional Record (yes, I am a geek) he's better than most people think, and compared to his dull speeches he's actually quite good. I think his camp knows that.

Either way it would be fun. Both candidates have walked away from chances to sling mud, and a substantive debate between candidates without gotcha media questions would be really something...

[Norman Bernstein]

What I'm really hoping is that this "town hall debate" thing will happen. Sen. Obama is unequalled as an orator, but he's not such a great extemporaneous speaker.

I agree.... he's far less impressive when extemporaneous.


Sen. McCain has a couple of decades worth of sharpening in the Senate, and if you read him in the Congressional Record (yes, I am a geek) he's better than most people think, and compared to his dull speeches he's actually quite good. I think his camp knows that.

However, as of 'late' (i.e., in recent years) he's shown a remarkable propensity for both being muddled on the facts, as well as denying the obvious. A number of times, for example, he's denied stuff to reporters that is easily confirmable on videotape. Things like that, in the context of a debate, can be deadly.


Either way it would be fun. Both candidates have walked away from chances to sling mud, and a substantive debate between candidates without gotcha media questions would be really something...

Presuming it actually were conducted like the Lincoln/Douglass debates, it could be highly interesting. However, it remains tobe seen how such a thing would be worked out, considering that it hasn't been done that way since.... well... Lincoln/Douglass! ;)

[C. Ross]

... he's shown a remarkable propensity for both being muddled on the facts, as well as denying the obvious. A number of times, for example, he's denied stuff to reporters that is easily confirmable on videotape. Things like that, in the context of a debate, can be deadly.

And they should be deadly. I think questions about McCain's age and mental acuity are fair game. So are questions about Obama's experience and seasoning. The best part of these debates would be to really tease that out. If McCain or Obama stumble, substantively, it'll be hard to recover.

[Captain Blight]

The Kennedy-Nixon debates were also pretty good. Mind you, I wasn't there to see them live--I wasn't even a tingle in Daddy's pants yet-- but I've watched old films and came away impressed. Saddened, too, by how low the level of "reportage" has sunk since then.

I blame Rupert Murdoch.

[Keith Wilson]

Debates would be OK, as long as they don't use the ADHD format that has beome customary of late. Give 'em time to say something substantive, and it might be worthwhile.

[ljb5]

Does Democrats.org point out Sen. Obama's pledge and retraction on the same issue?

Oh, please, Chris. You're trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

McCain's pledge was clearly offered independently and he broke it and then tried to weasle out of it.

Obama said he would pursue and agrement, which is obviously not the same thing as having entered an agreement. Since no agreement was ever forged, he's under no obligation.

Also, he happens to be really good at raising money. Sorry your candidate isn't. In case you haven't figured that out, it's because people don't like him. I'm not sure I feel bad about that.

Don't look now, but McCain is either lying or confused about his stance on emission controls. (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/17/does_john_mccain_know_what_hes/)

Also, his latest publicity wail seems to have back-fired. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200559.php)

The one good thing about this is that all the turd polishers will have plenty of opportunities to practice their craft.

[C. Ross]

McCain's pledge was clearly offered independently and he broke it and then tried to weasle out of it.

Obama said he'd be willing to enter into an agreement, but since no agreement was ever forged, he's under no obligation.

The very soul of fair and even-handed reasoning <grin>.

By the way, this turd handling, turd polishing thing is getting to be kind of a trope for you, innit? Feeling scatological over there in Dairyland? Seriously, I know there's been beaucoup flooding in WI, hope all's high and dry for you.

[C. Ross]

So how's the race going? Not even Fourth of July yet, so it hardly counts, but the tote board at the Real Clear Politics site, my favorite, is pretty interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Shows Obama with 272, McCain 266, 270 needed to win. Right now it's statistically tied.

[ljb5]

Dude, I lived in Wisconsin like five years ago. :rolleyes:

If you think the turd polishing is getting old, you should stop doing it.

McCain made a pledge, then he went back on it. Don't try to pick it up.

[ljb5]

You gotta admit, though, it is pretty funny that McCain tried to claim Icky Frye as a significant Democratic supporter.

And it's a little odd that he didn't know about Clayton Williams before he agreed to that fundraiser in Texas.

You gotta wonder about a political party that distributes these pins...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/wh-obama.jpg

I'm sure glad I don't have to defend that party.

[C. Ross]

I'm sure glad I don't have to defend that party.

Well, you don't have to defend any party.

You can think for yourself, and vote for candidates from various parties if you choose.

Your mileage may vary, but I find the world is more interesting viewed through non-polarized lenses.

[Captain Blight]

Debates would be OK, as long as they don't use the ADHD format that has beome customary of late. Give 'em time to say something substantive, and it might be worthwhile.Ritalin: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[ljb5]

Your mileage may vary, but I find the world is more interesting viewed through non-polarized lenses.

Viewed? Oh please, you can't see anything through your blinders.

McCain broke his pledge to take public money... and you can't see it.

Did you see this one, or are your "non-polarized lenses" too opaque?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/wh-obama.jpg

Here we are, almost eight years into a Republican quagmire of arrogance and incompetence and we still have people saying, "I can't see anything wrong here.... let's do it all over again."

[C. Ross]

I think that button is appalling.

My "blinders" allow me to see the merits of Democratic, Republican and Independence, and non-partrisan candidates. I have voted for, raised money for, given money to, worked on campaigns of, and supported candidates of each type. I don't give money directly to either party because I think they waste it, and generate crap like that button.

Again, there are justifiable reasons for people of good conscience to support Obama or McCain. I'm going to bed, but look forward to discussing real issues and real facts with smart people in the bilge, if that's possible. The gotcha stuff is meaningless and tiresome.

[ljb5]

The gotcha stuff is meaningless and tiresome.

I agree.... but frankly, I enjoy watching the Repugs squirm when they get caught up in their own lies.

Four years ago, the Repugs were all in favor of the "gotcha" stuff. (On this thread, you tried the "gotcha" stuff in posts 3 and 6. Didn't really work out for you.)

The guy who made the "Willie Horton" ads is now working for McCain. You want to talk about "gotcha" stuff??

After decades of Republican "gotcha" politics, they cry like little babies whenever anyone turns it back on them.