Letters to the Editor
-
A NON_ISSUE
Next.
-
other Obama hypocrite actions
During the 2006 campaign, Sen.Obama went to help Democrat Senate candidates in Tennessee and Maryland. He told the TN audiences that race should be considered in a candidate. He told the MD audiences that race should not be considered. What's the difference? The Democrat in TN was incumbent Rep.Harold Ford Jr. who was running for US Senate and the Democrat in MD was Ben Cardin. The Republicans in the two contests were Bob Corker in TN and Michael Steele in MD. Ford and Steele are African-American. Corker and Cardin are white. Ford and Steele lost. Corker and Cardin won. So that means that Sen.Obama told the crowds opposite advice in each state in favor of the Democrat, one for the African-American candidate and the other against the African-American candidate(although they both lost). In my opinion, that is hypocritical.
-
hypocrites? politicians
That said, anyone who thinks the Republicans would play by any rules aggreed to by the candidates is just plain crazy.
Obama didn't "pledge" to take public financing in the general election. His answer left the issue wide open, and he gave himself an easy out. Let's face it, John McCain has already tried to game the system. Obama should point that out and continue to raise his own funds and blast the corrupt Republicans, their sleazy Swift Boaters and 527's right to kingdom come.
The minute Obama agrees to a deal to a publically financed campaign he'd be burried under an avalanche from the Republican's conservative surrogate groups.
John McCain has already played dirty with public financing, so tell him to take his "ethics" and go to hell.
-
Easy Solution for Obama
I think Obama has the upper hand here politically: He can simply offer to honor his previous pledge on the condition that McCain abide by an FEC ruling, with the conditions that McCain can't wait until the ruling to make up his mind, and that he suspend spending until the ruling is delivered. This gives Obama the opportunity to paint himself as honorable, and force McCain to take a risk on the ruling, or expose himself politically.
Even if McCain were to accept, the funding limitations wouldn't kick in until September, until then Obama would almost certainly have the advantage, regardless of the FEC ruling. If he doesn't accept, Obama still has a fund-raising advantage, but now has a clear way to criticize McCain on one of the most prominent features of his platform. If a ruling comes down that McCain indeed did violate FEC regulations it would be a huge political weapon.
-
Barack Obama is not a hypocrite yet...
Obama hasn't said no to campaign limits just yet...
But McCain had already agreed to it in order to obtain that loan and now he wants to opt out of the public financing limits. You can't have it both ways.
So - yes - McCain is a hypocrite.
Money makes the world go round.
I think we should have campaign finance limits. Does anyone think that those TV ads are free? That private jet? All of those mailings? All of those DONUTS?
But as soon as we talk about limiting those 527's - Republicans call foul - 'FREE SPEECH'. They want to reserve the right to call Obama a radical muslim. It's the American way right?
All of you conspiracy theorists - 'Oh- I knew he was a phony'. 'Salon and the media are liberal'
You people would never vote for Obama anyway and I'm not sure what you're doing here on Salon since it's obviously a liberal site.
Go visit Rush and that wack job Cunningham on the web.
Obama should stick to public financing - and I should get some of my contributed money back - but he's shouldn't give his donor list to the DNC.
I'm not a democrat and I don't want to be counted as one.
-
Bullshit
Neither side has the moral standing to make his critique stick firmly to the other one;
Blatant lie.
Obama is reconsidering, in the light of changed circumstances, a statement made more than a year ago. Given the lovely quagmire into which a president who refuses to change his mind no matter what has gotten us into, Obama's ability to adjust to a new reality sounds pretty damn good.
McCain has already Broken. The. Law. Again, still and always blindly following Smirky into the most despicable criminal behavior.
See Glenn Greenwald on the MSM and false equivalency.
Shame.
-
Change with Reality
So, Obama is willing to change with the reality of things and that is good thing. Hillary's changes her style of campaigning and she has major problems. Double standard?! Many people supporting Obama have a problem with seeing that he is just like every other politician.
-
Campaign funding
Obama's agreement was based on a couple of big IFs: one that he actually is the nominee, and (2) the Republican nominee agrees to public funding and is willing to negotiate other terms that ensure fairness. Nothing wrong with any of this. Number (1) is not yet a fact, so there is no way you can hold him to his word right now. Number (2) is up in the air because McCain has already declared his INTENTION to forgo public financing. His only problem is that the FEC has him by the shorthairs because he used his promise of obtaining public funding as collateral for a $4 million loan. Not to mention he may have broken the law.
The Republicans don't think McCain can win with the limitations public funding so they will pull whatever strings are necessary to let him out of his bind. Result: both McCain and Obama use donor funding.
But if the FEC forces McCain to go public, what does Obama do? I think his best bet is to go public and use McCain's gaming the system as a HUGE issue for the so-called reformist. Just hammer the hell out of him for it, non-stop.
By the way, any pledge that Obama MAY have made is not binding. It is not a contract, just a statement of intent. So there is no issue at all of Obama breaking any law. That issue of legality is on McCain's side. Advantage: Obama.
(Sorry to use caps but this site does not allow emphasis tags.)