Obama Opts Out of Public Financing: Promise-Breaker or Reform-Shaker?
| Thu Jun. 19, 2008 10:00 AM PDT
In the decades after Watergate, the basic thrust of campaign finance reform was this: limit the flow of big-money private contributions to candidates. No more bags of money for the pols. Now, only donations of up to $2300 from individuals are acceptable. And in the presidential race, there is public financing: the nominees--if they agree to forgo fundraising--receive full underwriting of their general election campaigns. This year that subsidy is about $85 million.
This system has been an imperfect reform. There have been loopholes. Well-heeled private interests have poured money into independent efforts to support a preferred candidate or, more often, blast that candidate's opponent. And parties could raise money, while corporations could donate unrestricted amounts to presidential conventions. So the opportunity for one side to outspend the other (using unlimited donations from wealthy individuals, corporations or unions) has remained. The influence of big money has not been eradicated. Still, presidential candidates, once nominated, could focus on campaigning, rather than cash-hunting.
Now comes Barack Obama.
He has run for president as an agent of change who slams the money-talks ways of Washington. As an Illinois state senator and as a U.S. senator, he has passed reform measures. Yet on Thursday, in an email to his supporters, he announced that he would not participate in the public financing system in the general election, despite an earlier promise to stay within this system. He will be the first major presidential nominee to reject public financing for the general election since Watergate. Instead of relying on that check from the U.S. Treasury, he will continue his record-setting fundraising operation. John McCain's campaign immediately and predictably proclaimed that this decision "undermines his call for a new type of politics" and will "weaken and undermine the public financing system."
Obama said:
Continues Below
Continued From Above
It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.
Obama is clearly doing what's best for his political prospects. No doubt, Obama, who has raised about $265 million so far (while McCain has raised $97 million), can pocket hundreds of millions of dollars in the general election. So by eschewing the public financing system, he will have far more dollars to deploy--and be able to double, triple or quadruple what the McCain campaign raises and spends (presuming McCain keeps within the system).
But the story here is deeper than the simple narrative, Obama-sells-out-reform. His campaign, relying on Internet fundraising, has broken records in the number of small donors it has attracted. It has been far more populist than other major campaigns when it comes to fundraising. As Obama put it, "Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we've built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans." Sure, Obama did receive a significant amount from maxed-out contributors and bundlers, but he has mobilized small contributors like no one else. Given that the goal of the reform system was to prevent big-money backers from getting their hooks into a candidate, are its restrictions less relevant for a candidate who does so well with small donors?
When the system was first designed, few could imagine an Internet-dominated world in which it would be possible for a candidate who motivates millions of voters to haul in so much from non-fat-cats. Are these rules then obsolete? And considering that Democrats have often been at a disadvantage when it comes to big-bucks fundraising (though not lately), should a Democratic nominee walk away from an advantage in people-power fundraising? After all, if literally millions of citizens yearn to make a small contribution to a campaign that aims to undo the work of the Bush administration, why stop them? Isn't that small-d democracy at its best? And Obama's decision will put him in a stronger position to pressure independent groups from raising and spending unlimited amounts to support him or attack McCain. If he does draw in $300 million or so in campaign donations, Obama will not need these outsiders. McCain, however, will. Even though McCain has said he does not fancy independent spending in campaigns, he will be less able to lean on these players (say, this year's Swift Boaters) to cease and desist. Assuming that McCain will rely on the public subsidy of $85 million, the GOP will somehow have to cover the $200 million-plus gap between the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign.
Obama can be pegged a flip-flopper on this front. And the McCain camp is right: he's setting a precedent that will weaken the system. Longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer says,
We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.
We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system. Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system....
Senator Obama's decision to opt out...make it all the more important for Senator Obama to personally make clear to the public in no uncertain terms that if he is elected, one of the early priorities for his Administration will be enacting legislation to repair the presidential public financing system.
The argument that the Obama campaign has created a parallel system of public financing through its Internet small donor fundraising does not hold up. ...Larger contributions and bundlers already have played an important role in financing the Obama presidential primary campaign and may well do so in the general election....
It is true that Obama has used bundlers and accepted money from big donors. But he has indeed demonstrated the potential of a new model. And Obama is one of three lead Senate sponsors of legislation that would improve the presidential public financing system, particularly for presidential primaries. This bill would give primary candidates public matching funds of $4 for every $1 raised, covering only individual contributions of $200 or less. Under this reform, the importance of smaller Internet contributions would be maximized and the primaries would become less a money-chase than they have been.
Does Obama's decision mean he's a phony, or is his embrace and mastery of small-donor fundraising an indication he is truly a vehicle for change? Ultimately, his move will be judged expediently. Political foes will brand him a business-as-usual promise-breaker. His supporters will cheer his hard call and celebrate his grassroots and netroots successes as a democratic (and Democratic) triumph. As for nonpartisan reformers, they will have to keep on pondering the implications for reform and clean elections in the brave new world of the web. And whatever happens in November, Obama will not have the excuse of having been outspent. This self-proclaimed candidate of change will be the most well-financed-by-the-voters politician in the history of the United States.
Comments
Let's just clarify.
According to www.opensecrets.org:
[...in our industry totals we also include contributions from an industry's political action committees, which is also raised from individuals but gets directed to candidates by the corporation, trade association, union or other entity that controls the PAC. While PAC money is easy to classify by industry, individual contributions to candidates and parties are far more difficult to classify ? both because of the huge number of contributions, and because the data is based on employer/occupation data that is often incomplete. In most election cycles, approximately 70% of the contributions there have been categorized, based on the occupation/employer reported by the donor. Generally speaking, the Center's coding is more complete in more recent election cycles than in the earlier years.
NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF LESS THAN $200.
Those contributions are not itemized by candidates, but rather reported in bulk."]
The opensecrets site is the best internet tool we've got for finding out who funnels money to whom in politics.
Even if it doesn't make our favored candidates look too squeeky clean, we shouldn't write the information off as irrelevant.
If you think knowing the amounts that people in a particular industry contribute to a particular candidate isn't useful in trying to determine who is seeking to influence that candidate, and in what way, I must respectfully disagree.
Let's just clarify.
According to www.opensecrets.org:
[...in our industry totals we also include contributions from an industry's political action committees, which is also raised from individuals but gets directed to candidates by the corporation, trade association, union or other entity that controls the PAC. While PAC money is easy to classify by industry, individual contributions to candidates and parties are far more difficult to classify ? both because of the huge number of contributions, and because the data is based on employer/occupation data that is often incomplete. In most election cycles, approximately 70% of the contributions there have been categorized, based on the occupation/employer reported by the donor. Generally speaking, the Center's coding is more complete in more recent election cycles than in the earlier years.
NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF LESS THAN $200.
Those contributions are not itemized by candidates, but rather reported in bulk."]
The opensecrets site is the best internet tool we've got for finding out who funnels money to whom in politics.
Even if it doesn't make our favored candidates look too squeeky clean, we shouldn't write the information off as irrelevant.
If you think knowing the amounts that people in a particular industry contribute to a particular candidate isn't useful in trying to determine who is seeking to influence that candidate, and in what way, I must respectfully disagree.
I'm an Obama supporter who does not appreciate this decision. Yes, I understand the benefits to his campaign, but thinking about the risk here makes me stagger. He's just opened the door for a valid flip-flopping charge...and reversed position on a rather significant issue.
This, just after the Muslim womens' complaint...I have to say I don't like the pattern this week.
Obama/Kucinich 08!
Passed 'reform' measures, has he?
Well, www.opensecrets.org tells us that for the 2008 Presidential campaign, in money taken from just ONE sector (Lawyers & Lobbyists) Barack has already taken over 17 MILLION Bucks. Second ONLY to HRC.
Sector: Lawyers & Lobbyists
Hillary Clinton: $17,645,358
Barack Obama: $17,500,375
John Edwards: $7,824,512
John McCain: $5,661,398
Rudy Guiliani: $4,507,828
They also shed some light on his political career handouts received:
Lawyers and Law firms: $13,955,388
Securities and Investments: $7,264,160
Miscellaneous Finance: $7,413,077
Real Estate: $3,765,953
Business Services: $3,274,570
Hollywood (Movies, TV, Music):
$3,051,080
Commercial Banks: $1,482,940
Insurance Companies: $800,904
Construction: $652,222
Computers & ISPs: $1,888,460
Healthcare Industry: $2,361,878
Given the amounts of money he's ALREADY taken from business lobbys, what would that pledge Really Mean anyway, even if he DIDN'T take any more between now and November?
That those who had Already Given him Tens of Millions of Dollars would no longer count with him, and We WOULD?
If you buy THAT story, maybe you'd like to buy some ocean-front real estate I've got for sale in Nevada...
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Thu Jun. 19, 2008 10:41 AM PDT.
DC,
Great piece.
I am going to send Barack another small donation just for good measure.
Change is a bear but change is coming.
With the internet the small donors are better connected and the future of fundraising will continue to evolve.
This is the first broadband president - things are different and the old ways are dead and dying.
Flow as you go. Obama is out to win an election. Sometimes "change" means just that: change in direction. We're not looking at a saint-in-cement here; we're watching a politician do what has to be done. As far as McCane goes, he can't keep up with Obama, so...he whines in platitudes. And the incessant whinings are hypocritical at best. This time around, McCane is out of his league.
If McCain had made this choice, he would have been McLiar. If Hillary had done this she would have been that lying bitc., but of course when the anointed one does it, his supporters will find 50 ways to spin this as okie dokie. The loony left is just as disingenuous as the radical right.
"Assuming that McCain will rely on the public subsidy of $85 million, the GOP will somehow have to cover the $200 million-plus gap between the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign."
Is Obama's strategy here to break the GOP? Make them flush so much cash into McCain that they have little left in House and Senate contests?
The last line of the article summed it all up: "This self-proclaimed candidate of change will be the most well-financed-by-the-voters politician in the history of the United States."
The key words are "financed by the voters." That's a lot different than financed by the corporations. Of course we voters do have an agenda just like the corporations. Our agenda is to bust up the corporate strangle-hold on our government.
Obama would have to take a HUGE risk by foregoing his advantage in fundraising. In that sense, its really not his decision alone and he is compelled to make a decision which reflects the best interest of his party and its members, which I think he has done. It is small fuel for the adversary (flip-flop charge) but equally disempowers those who would accuse him of being a altrustic chump (like Carter).
The only way he could get by on public financing would be to use his vast list of email contributers to raise money for OTHER Democratic candidates--by sending emails asking the recipients to forward to another page and give to the other D's. That concept is a bit too fancy for even smart Mr. Obama. In the mean time, if Obama's financial advantage continues (as it has been thus far), Mr, McCain is 'toast', come 2nd Tuesd. in Nov.
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Thu Jun. 19, 2008 2:43 PM PDT.
to Change!
You have to be careful about your definitions. The figures you quote aren't form registered lobbyists, but from people who work in those industries. They could be looking for access, but if you work for a bank and make a donation from your personal funds, you have to report your employer and occupation, and that means your donation gets counted as coming from banking.
Let's just clarify.
According to www.opensecrets.org:
[...in our industry totals we also include contributions from an industry's political action committees, which is also raised from individuals but gets directed to candidates by the corporation, trade association, union or other entity that controls the PAC. While PAC money is easy to classify by industry, individual contributions to candidates and parties are far more difficult to classify both because of the huge number of contributions, and because the data is based on employer/occupation data that is often incomplete. In most election cycles, approximately 70% of the contributions there have been categorized, based on the occupation/employer reported by the donor. Generally speaking, the Center's coding is more complete in more recent election cycles than in the earlier years.
NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF LESS THAN $200.
Those contributions are not itemized by candidates, but rather reported in bulk."]
The opensecrets site is the best internet tool we've got for finding out who funnels money to whom in politics.
Even if it doesn't make our favored candidates look too squeeky clean, we shouldn't write the information off as irrelevant.
If you think knowing the amounts that people in a particular industry contribute to a particular candidate isn't useful in trying to determine who is seeking to influence that candidate, and in what way, I must respectfully disagree.
Change! the point opensecrets takes is far too high-minded to bring to this political fight. Gore and Kerry both fought by Marquis de Queensbury rules and got beat by a bunch of street fighters. Tanks be to Gott he's playing to win!
and we do not know the dynamics behind those donations. Maybe like-minded people just want this Orwellian nightmare to end.
David, Obama has a grassroots network of 1.5 Million people who've given a max of $20. That's $30 Million dollars out of $265 Millions received to date; 10% to 15% of the current total from small donors.
He, and Democrats in general, can expect to benefit handsomely from 527's such as Sauros'.
His decision would be easier to stomach if he had not actually SPONSORed public campaign finance legislation!!
Let's just call a spade a spade; he realizes now that he will outraise McCain and the Republicans (largely from big donors), so he wants to remove the restrictions he was trying to legislate.
Perhaps the story is NOT deeper than the simple narrative.
I hope that Obama has the brains, heart and guts to make any decision that will get him elected in November. If that means doing something that can have a negative spin in the moment, so be it. The gloves are always off for Repubs. Let's show them that we cannot be bullied into submission again. Remember President Gore?
I couldn't help noticing that Obama met with HRC's money folk last week and this week opted out of public financing. Looks a lot like business as usual.
Also, I think that organized groups are political entities and individual donors are not. I'd rather have organized labor contributing to a candidate than an individual worker.
Although I enjoy David Corn this looks like a matter of David's saying since he likes Obama, anything Barask does is saintly. Not so.
I think the republicans will have only the highest admiration for Obama. Hopefully, he is beating them at their own game. In the past two elections, both Gore and Kerry were swift-boated, now let the repugs experience being torpedoed.
{"In the past two elections, both Gore and Kerry were swift-boated, now let the repugs experience being torpedoed."}
You really want to see this behavior repeated, expanded and perpetuated?
Three wrongs will make it right? If it means a Dem makes it to the Whitehouse you'll feel good about it, no matter what it took?
We complain about dirty politics from the other side and then cheer on our side when they emulate it?
Don't we teach our children that "he hit me first" is an unacceptable excuse for clobbering the other kid?
And we wonder why Americans become so disillusioned with politics that nearly half of eligible voters stay home on election day.
"We're watching a politician do what has to be done."
Posted by dadpasadena on 06/19/08 at 11:13 AM
You're right about that, but when it was Sen. Clinton, that was considered to be a despicable characteristic of an old style pol.
The hypocrisy of Sen. Obama and his supporters about this subject is stunning. Money has been at the core of politics for a long time and this move by Sen. Obama renders his message of "change" to little more than a hollow platitude.
Submitted by Michael Heister (not verified) on Fri Jun. 20, 2008 2:18 PM PDT.
From what I understand, the overall average donation to Obama during the primaries was around $100, with many people giving multiple small donations in the $5-50 range.
Given how much Obama's raised on the Internet, it's easier for him than for most politicians to say to the fat cats, I don't need you THAT badly.
The GOP has historically been better at raising huge sums for the relatively unregulated RNC than the Dems for the DNC. Rich corporate interests have also more richly funded right-wing 527's, enabling the GOP to swift-boat its opponents. The Dems have been consistently outgunned there.
As currently constructed, public financing makes candidates MORE dependent on the big-bucks contributors who fund the party national committees and 527's.
On the document McCain keeps citing, Obama offered a detailed explanation of the negotiations that would have to take place to reach an agreement to commit to public financing. To wit, Obama wanted to address the the party national committees and the 527's.
Obama and McCain had a discussion at Tim Russert's funeral. There were also press reports of back-channel negotiations. But the truth is, because of the First Amendment McCain could not promise to stop the right-wing 527's any more than Obama could simply dictate to moveon.org.
McCain will try to make political hay with this, but he's already getting hit back with reminders of his legally-questionable footsie game with public financing during the primaries, and getting a whole of free frequent flyer miles on his wife's exempted jet. And who put the air travel exemption into the campaign reform legislation???
Bottom line - Obama rejected federally-controlled public financing in favor of turning to the general public for financing. He's playing to win. I know Democrats aren't used to this, but they should find it refreshing.
this guy obama has no track record...he left his church,now goes back on his word about campaign funds, kinda makes you wonder how he would haved voted on the iraq war, had he held an office, this guy is being backed by some big money from some where , and its not the internet, gimme a break...you dont start a campaign in inter city chicago on internet money, if he s elected we ll find out a lot more but it will be to late, write in a candidate, hopefully an independant, but write one in, dont play the game again this election cycle, the only change your gonna get will be in your pocket, i cant believethis guy is even being concidered for this job
There are two reasons that the Republicans are moaning as loudly as they are: (1) they didn't do it first, and (2) they didn't do it first!
The Republicans are the masters of lying, hypocrisy, deception and Dirty Tricks. Obama outsmarted them. He did an end run around them. HE DID THE RIGHT THING. Why would he deliberately limit himself when he would be absolutely foolish to do so? The only stupid thing he did was to make that pledge. Now he broke it, he's taking heat, and -- IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION.
You want Change? HERE'S CHANGE! He broke away from a system full of loopholes and back doors where all kinds of over-the-limit money comes through under the table.
Now it's all out in the open. He's trusting his followers to finance his run for the presidency. That's REAL CHANGE, which he has promised all along. Sometimes really stupid promises need to be broken.
I my opinion, he already has a different kind of public finance system. He will be the voice of common folks and not big interests. Public is banding together to support him. I am not sure why media does not see it that way. And in the end, he has to win to make difference.
Good thought. The DCCC (run Rep. Van Hoeln [MD])is doing well in fundraising, but the DNC (with it's funds distribution network better tied into local campaigns than the DCCC) is not. I like Obama because he is shrewd and has a healthy cynical streak in him (i.e., Jon Stewart).
What a joke! This whole issue is the biggest red herring I have EVER seen. Who Cares! what a NON-issue. People act like a politician has never had to compromise his values just to get in office. Wow. Just remember, "SHEEPLE".......in order to enact CHANGE...........you first need to get into office! So what if he is taking millions of small donations from the "common people". It's actually very refreshing for a CHANGE. Does anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty think that McBush would not do the same exact thing if he could? Give me a break you sanctimonious ace-holes. Please excuse me.........I'm going to the Obama website right now to make another donation! Hasta la vista BABIES.
to rick, you got it right, you don't come out of a city like chicago, get a web address, and than say, i think ill run for president, that way people will send me hundreds of millions of dollars, lets see if a hundred people send me a million dollars each, thats already a hundred million,this is the kind of logic, most of you idiots understand, get it in your heads, obama will change things, but not for the better. i was a life long democrat, but after kennedy kerry, dean and the florida and michigan deal, im now an independent, and wont vote for either one of those jerks,signed a 40 year former democrat
hey crawford,...have ken starr put on you for a couple years ,60 million bucks, and all his goons, to investigate every thing you ever did in your life, try that one on...swift boat was ugly dirty rotten politics, but nothing like ken starr, but obama was gonna be an above the board fair play guy of the people...he lied
...but obama was gonna be an above the board fair play guy of the people...he lied
ricko apparently prefers martyrdom in his Democratic candidates.
Sure McCain and his allies are going to push this as a "broken promise." No one, not even us crazy Obama "five and dimers" (full disclosure: I'm in for $195 so far, and plan to AT LEAST match that the rest of the way) could imagine that we were backing a candidate who could actually outraise the GOP opponent. We didn't realize that there were so many of us deluded souls out there. And guess what? There's apt to be even more of us now.
Call it lying if you want, but Obama has correctly concluded that he can best help the entire Democratic ticket by continuing to rely on folks like me for most of his total haul. The coattails he can generate by essentially underwriting the campaigns of good Dems who are going to be outraised by the local GOP incumbent are HUGE. This could mean 10-15 MORE people in the House, 2-3 MORE in the Senate than is already expected, perhaps a couple more Governors and change of control of a couple of statehouses, maybe even as far down-ballot as dogcatcher in some places. All because these candidates know that VOTER ID AND GOTV WILL BE FULLY FUNDED leading up to E-Day. As someone who has watched for decades as a promising Democratic candidate poured as much money as possible into the "air war" only to come up short because he or she was tapped out for the "ground game", this is BIG.
Everything that Obama says, or does, or did, or might have done, or is said to have done -- every iota of it will fuel the mill of the Republikan Party and its Swift-Boat minions, who will use one smear, one equivocation, one implication, one false charge, one dirty trick, or one blatant crime after another in an attempt to gore Obama.
Obama is right, and if he flip-flopped, as they call it, he was simply demonstrating an ability to change his mind in the face of facts -- which is something no modern Republikan appears to understand.
It will take money to counter the huge surfeit of loot that American industry will feed to the McCain campaign. That's the reality that Obama has belatedly recognized -- but Republikans appear to have lost the ability to adapt. They have become stupid, deliberately, choosing to believe their fantasies because fantasies suit them well and serve them well.
Doesn't anyone understand that this election is nothing short of war? The polarization in America is still present; it comes from an unhealed wound: the failure of -- indeed the absence of -- Reconstruction. It is no surprise that America's fascism arises from the south, at least in terms of "philosophy." Their faith is one that has encompassed, and encompasses today, torture, disenfrachisement, and murder. All that was conceded for the blood of Union soldiers was the end of slavery. Nothing else changed for the right (whether posing as Democratic or Republikan).
The polarization has not gone -- it has solidified. When you stack the Constitution up against the values of the Democratic Party and those of the Republikans, both parties earn low compliance score.
However, the Republikans have put one criminal after another in the White House for decades, starting with Richard Nixon -- and they are not about to stop it, unless we stop them.
Our opponents intend to go on destroying the biosphere upon which we depend for our very lives, and they are willing to do it without any regard whatsoever for the prospects of humanity, or even for the future of their own progeny.
They forcibly overthrew our democracy in 2000, and sooner or later, pundits and peons alike must realize that this is a war, and if we play the opposition's games, we'll lose.
Of course, it is not a war of bullets, nor of any violence. That kind of revolution is no longer possible. The power of the modern state cannot be resisted by those means.
It is the way of Ghandi, the way of King, of Lech Wałęsa, that can bring about revolution. The revolutionary model of Lithuania, East Germany and Poland provide a new path for change. We will always have criminal Republikan stooges in the Oval Office if that's what we deserve -- until such time as, like brave Ukranians or East Germans, we surround the executive seat in our masses, demanding liberty and justice for all.
Until then, we are going to have Republikan grotesques, like McCain or Bush, jeopardizing our liberty as well as the prospects of our species' survival.
High-minded? Surely you hold BO to a greater standard that JM. Quite simply BO is a 'leader' that does not honor his promises or commitments. If thats what you desire in a politician - fine, but don't pretend BO is bringing a new day of hope and change to the political landscape of America. This guy is as a corrupt a politician as the best of them. Three days ago BO website touted election finance reform Today the page has been removed. Whatever suits BO at any given moment is what his policy will change to. You have to be delusional to support this guy.
In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. (NYT)--
broken promise?...its a lie, he s on record,..he s a liar simple stuff, and if your cool with that, than your no better than the republicans you so detest,...and yeah you might be right, i would rather support hillary clinton and ,lets just say narrowly lose, than support obama,anyday....and onlinsavant, i dont have any spare change for you ask the great obama he seems to have plenty,god i hope your not an illegal
It's worth noting that small ($20-$200) donations are quoted at making up between 47% and 50% of Obama's total.
I do think this is best expressed in terms of a movement for change. Obama really has gone to bat for the idea of "new politics." His entire campaign so far has been based on energizing everyday people to political action and it's working. I don't necessarily agree with this decision, but it's reassuring that the numbers back up Obama's rhetoric.
As for this "Obamamania" nonsense... Are you people surprised that people are defending Obama? For the first time in my life I see people voting for and stumping for a candidate because they like the candidate--not because of who the candidate is running against.
Obama has finally revealed himself for what he is - a savvy, hard (even ruthless) Chicgo pol who managed to hoodwink half the voters in the Democratic primaries.
This could hurt him if the GOP plays it right. No one likes a hypocrite who portrays himself as holier-than-thou.
You refuse to get it! This "compromise" is enough to kill public financing altogether. That's what makes it such a big deal, and why Obama is just another cheap politician after all.
And while we're at it, he's alredy back-tracking on NAFTA, and after saying he would love to have ten town meetings with John McCain, he bowed out.
I think he compromises with the truth too much. What other promises will he break?
Thanks for clearing up my confusion about public financing which sounds good on the surface vs private funding which sounds bad in big hunks, especially from big business.
I am extremely relieved to see that Obama is not a naive goody goody (as a politician from Chicago I figured he had street smarts but sometimes he just seems too nice to be real) and can outfox the enemy. Trust me Mccain is the enemy and there are very big stakes, life and death, a catastrophic drop in our standard of living etc., at risk here. If all you died in the wool repubs (read fascists) are rejecting Obama's decision to
rely on his network supporters rather than be beaten to death by the vicious slams and slander public financing for McCain would and will buy, then you must think we, the libs, dems, and cross over independents are fools. You would not accept Obama under any circumstances - but to read that the reason you are criticizing Obama is altruistic, because it is not the proper thing to do, and it would be better to let the Repubs win instead - I have to lol.
The fact that Obama has the ability to raise money thru individuals, enough to counterattack some of the same crap Hillary dished only more so, is proof enough that the people who are being victimized want Obama in power. With our help he will now have the means to at least fight back.
I think you're really secretly pissed because he is showing guts and toughness you thought he didn't have and some foresight in financial planning that will win him the presidency - skills he will well have to use to straighten out the mess we have inherited from the Republican dictatorship.
If there are more of us and we can raise more money to fight the filthy politics inherent to and part and parcel of the Republican party, then so be it. Go cry to someone who can be made to believe that there is any such thing as a moral, honest or decent Republican with anything even vaguely resembling values of any kind except those in their wallet or willing to embrace any change except that in their own pocket.
