Letters to the Editor
-
What about that other pledge?
All this talk of pledges, and no one is comparing it to the other very visible pledge taken by the Democratic candidates: Florida and Michigan. When those states defied the DNC, all the candidates understood that those delegates would not count towards the total. But because Clinton would be helped by seating F. and M., she sidesteps her earlier agreement and calls for their votes to count.
Given this context, how can anyone fault Obama for wanting to cross the t's and dot the i's on any agreement with a Republican candidate? If the rules are not clear, then any violation would just get swept under the carpet by the winning Republican like the problems in Florida in 2000. Obama is promising the Democrats he will not allow himself to be swiftboated and will not be a meek (and losing) candidate. That means he will do what it takes within the law to win the election.
Obama points to an agreement between Weld and Kerry in 1996, as a workable arrangement: any expenditure by an outside group was counted against the candidate's limit. Why is that so outrageous a model? And why is anyone faulting Obama for waiting until the primary is resolved before he works out with McCain what their pledge would mean? When countries agree in principle to a treaty or whatever, we give them the time to work out the details so it's enforceable. That's all Obama is asking for here.