I'm disappointed...

El_Kabong

noodles_jefferson wrote:

obama does get public financing. straight from the public itself...in the form of millions of small donations from regular Americans. I mean it's the same concept but without the govt involved, isn't it? It's money from the public and not special interests. maybe i'm being dumb. And pragmatically speaking, he can raise a lot more on his own and he'll need it. the 527's are going to come in droves fueld by money that the RNC collects and Obama needs to raise as much as he can to counter it (not with cheap shots, either).

didn't he get over $77MILLION from donations larger than $2,300??? hasn't he received millions from ceo's like a couple hundred thousand from Exelon's execs? aren't some of his biggest contributors citigroup, goldman sachs and other financial instituitions?

i think so...no, i know so

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3927316&blogID=406835625

Urban Hiker

noodles_jefferson wrote:

How is he getting McCain locked in? McCain doesn't have to take public financing, he could do what Obama is doing, and he would if he thought he could raise the kind of money Obama is raising. It's a pragmatic decision that both guys made to go the way they did.

From the article:
McCain and Obama both declined public financing in the primary contests, thus avoiding the spending limits that come attached to the money. McCain had initially applied for the money, however, and has been in a dispute with the Federal Election Commission over whether he needs commission approval to decline the primary election funds. The FEC insists that he does, but has not had a quorum to act because four of its six seats have been vacant pending Senate confirmation of presidential nominees. McCain lawyers have disputed the need for FEC approval.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21, said he was "disappointed" in Obama's decision. "We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system," he said. "Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system."

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

Last year, both Obama and McCain indicated in separate commitments that they would participate in the public system for the general election, as long as both candidates agreed.

In response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, which is made up of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain 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."

*****************************************************

It reads to me like he's locked into using the general fund and is locked into the limits that come with it - at least for now. I'm sure he'll lawyer his way out. However, if Obama had kept his word, this would be a non-issue.

The rest reads to me like Obama changed his mind, turned on his word, adapted as the game changed :rolleyes:, lied, made a move typical of a politician, whatever....

To me Obama's just another politician. However, he speaks really well, so much of the public is completely enamored with him. This makes me feel like whatever happens, if he can come up with some sing-song reasoning for his actions the public will give him leeway without expecting any substantial accountability.

It's a waste of charisma. He could use it to persuade America into real progressive change. So far, from his platform, I don't see that happening.

noodles_jefferson

Urban Hiker wrote:

From the article:
McCain and Obama both declined public financing in the primary contests, thus avoiding the spending limits that come attached to the money. McCain had initially applied for the money, however, and has been in a dispute with the Federal Election Commission over whether he needs commission approval to decline the primary election funds. The FEC insists that he does, but has not had a quorum to act because four of its six seats have been vacant pending Senate confirmation of presidential nominees. McCain lawyers have disputed the need for FEC approval.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21, said he was "disappointed" in Obama's decision. "We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system," he said. "Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system."

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

Last year, both Obama and McCain indicated in separate commitments that they would participate in the public system for the general election, as long as both candidates agreed.

In response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, which is made up of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain 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."

*****************************************************

It reads to me like he's locked into using the general fund and is locked into the limits that come with it - at least for now. I'm sure he'll lawyer his way out. However, if Obama had kept his word, this would be a non-issue.

The rest reads to me like Obama changed his mind, turned on his word, adapted as the game changed :rolleyes:, lied, made a move typical of a politician, whatever....

To me Obama's just another politician. However, he speaks really well, so much of the public is completely enamored with him. This makes me feel like whatever happens, if he can come up with some sing-song reasoning for his actions the public will give him leeway without expecting any substantial accountability.

It's a waste of charisma. He could use it to persuade America into real progressive change. So far, from his platform, I don't see that happening.

My god, you're really focusing in on this one thing. I bet if you ask the average obama supporter if they care that he decided not to take public money, they would say, fine whetever helps him. He's not breakin rule s, he's makign a pregmatic decision thast will help him compete down the stetch. and he's not taking special interest money so why would people be upset about that? The only people ranting about the "principle" of it are right wingers tryin to muddle his message of change.

it's not like he flip flopped on an issue that impacts our lives. he's just changing the way he plans to fund his campaign, so freakin waht? you're still overloking the major thing which is that HE's CREATING A GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT FREE OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY AND MCCAIN IS LOBBIED UP TO HIS TEETH!!! have you ever kbnown him to posture or do complete 180's on issues such as women's rights, torture, off-shore drilling, or a host of other issues like McCain has? come on. when you find the perfect politician who does and says everything perfectly, you let me know. you only have two choices here. if you want more of the same shit, then go vote for McCain.

Urban Hiker

noodles_jefferson wrote:

ok, so you're goin to do waht then, vote for McCain? you think he's better for this country?

From your last quote of and response to my first post, I assumed you knew I was a Nader supporter. Maybe my sig gave it away.

Rhinocerous Surprise

noodles_jefferson wrote:

ok, so you're goin to do waht then, vote for McCain? you think he's better for this country?

There are more than two candidates, you know.

noodles_jefferson

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

There are more than two candidates, you know.

look, i don't have any personal problem with Nader but i don't live in a pie in the sky world, I live in the real world. he's got no chance of winning. Obama may not be the most progressive guy in the world, but he's a zillion times more principled, inhtelligent, and capable than john "Bomb Bomb iran" Mccain. And while i think a viable third party is a great idea, i really don't see where nader has been working so hard in non election years to help create and nurture a viable third party, I just see him pop up in election years.

noodles_jefferson

Urban Hiker wrote:

From your last quote of and response to my first post, I assumed you knew I was a Nader supporter. Maybe my sig gave it away.

in an election this important, where Nader has no shot, a vote for him is basically a total waste. maybe you can pat yourself on the back and say "i'm more principled" but you've done nothing to help make any tangible difference in the lives of Americans. McCain will do absolutely nothign about health care, about ending the illegal occupation of iraq, he will trample on Womens rights appointing supreme court justices that will overturn Roe vs Wade. that's the reality of it. If you like those things then you can take away a vote from obama and give it to a guy with no shot of winning. that's your choice.

Rhinocerous Surprise

noodles_jefferson wrote:

look, i don't have any personal problem with Nader but i don't live in a pie in the sky world, I live in the real world. he's got no chance of winning. Obama may not be the most progressive guy in the world, but he's a zillion times more principled, inhtelligent, and capable than john "Bomb Bomb iran" Mccain. And while i think a viable third party is a great idea, i really don't see where nader has been working so hard in non election years to help create and nurture a viable third party, I just see him pop up in election years.

If Nader has no chance of winning, it's because people prefer to support candidates who are so principled, they go back on their word about their campaign funding. Your point about Nader building a third party was addressed fairly thoroughly in a thread a few pages back.

noodles_jefferson

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If Nader has no chance of winning, it's because people prefer to support candidates who are so principled, they go back on their word about their campaign funding. Your point about Nader building a third party was addressed fairly thoroughly in a thread a few pages back.

I'll look. i'm not against the guy, but we have to work with what we have if we want to see any change. you act like Obama has no principle because of this change in strategy. Who would people care as long as he's still taking money from the people and not from lobbyists. i just think way too much has been made over this change in strategy. i don't feel lied to, sorry. i see at as good strategy. saying i will use public funds a few months ago and then putting out a video saying he's changed his mind is not lying to people, it's changing your strategy so that you can go toe to toe with a guy who would be a total disaster as president. I have no problem with it. you may think i'm less principled, but I'm realyl not, i'm just more pragmatic, IMO. One day amybe we'll live in a world where the Kuciniches and the Naders of the world are the viable candidates and the Mccains of the world are obsolete, but were not there yet and Mccain getting in office will certainly not help us get there. slow change is better than no chasnge or going backward.

Rhinocerous Surprise

noodles_jefferson wrote:

I'll look. i'm not against the guy, but we have to work with what we have if we want to see any change. you act like Obama has no principle because of this change in strategy. Who would people care as long as he's still taking money from the people and not from lobbyists. i just think way too much has been made over this change in strategy. i don't feel lied to, sorry. i see at as good strategy.

I wonder if the people who excuse Obama changing his mind on this also excused Hilary for deciding to campaign in Florida? That was just strategy, right?

decides2dream

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If Nader has no chance of winning, it's because people prefer to support candidates who are so principled, they go back on their word about their campaign funding. Your point about Nader building a third party was addressed fairly thoroughly in a thread a few pages back.

actually, it never really was. it's a long thread...filled with a whole not of nothing. just saying....


however, since that is not the topic of this thread.....i agree it's a shame obama changed his mind, but to me, it's simply strategy. i don't look at it as a bad sign of him being unprincipled, nor anything like that. i consider it a pragmatic move. sure, you can call him playing the politician, but again.....i personally don't take issue with that. i am not against playing the game if that is what needs to be done to get in office. i am not suggesting do ANYthing to win and that's all that matters....but rethinking your choice or position on something...not necessarily a bad thing.

obviously, it may be a big deal to other people..perhaps it will cost him some votes? who knows...however, i would think he's considered all this and still thinks this is the way to go. we all have that choice - him to change his mind, us to vote.



btw - i don't look at it as 'excusing' at all. i am making my own personal judgement on it as everyone can do the same. obama will feel whatever consequences of his actions the voters see fit, as it should be.

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

In this thread Obama is excused because that is just how the game is played, unfortunately. In the thread about the Muslim women not being part of the photo op it was excused because that is how the game is played. Unfortunately, it sounds like he wants to be a great player of the game rather than an principled leader. Too bad. I think principles are much more important that gamesmanship.

Exactly! Where is all this change we can believe in again?

I wonder if this is how he will be treated once in office....no matter what goes down, it will all be part of Obama 'playing the game he has to play'. And isn't GW playing the same game? No free passes for him, I guess.

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly! Where is all this change we can believe in again?

I wonder if this is how he will be treated once in office....no matter what goes down, it will all be part of Obama 'playing the game he has to play'. And isn't GW playing the same game? No free passes for him, I guess.

personally, i don't see it the same at all. once in office...no gmae to play, except what YOU want to accomplish. yes, certainly one has to work with others, compromise at times, etc......but to me, that's the whole point of playing the game while a candidate...to WIN, to get in office...so you CAN be a part of creating the change you want to see in this country. however, i respect we all see that differently.

one is a candidate...the other an already elected official. i don't see 'free passes' for anyone.

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

personally, i don't see it the same at all. once in office...no gmae to play, except what YOU want to accomplish. yes, certainly one has to work with others, compromise at times, etc......but to me, that's the whole point of playing the game while a candidate...to WIN, to get in office...so you CAN be a part of creating the change you want to see in this country. however, i respect we all see that differently.

one is a candidate...the other an already elected official. i don't see 'free passes' for anyone.

How you conduct yourself should remain around the same if you're living through your principles. You don't just throw those out when it's convenient for you to do so.

noodles_jefferson

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I wonder if the people who excuse Obama changing his mind on this also excused Hilary for deciding to campaign in Florida? That was just strategy, right?

ahhh, no not the same thing at all. Hillary actually lied. not only campaigning in Florida, but she also kept her name on the Michigan ballot after promising to take it off, then when asked why, she said she didn't take it off because "Everybody knew the primary was not going to cout for anything" and then after she was behind, decided to make an issue about counting them, even though Obama took his name off, as promised, and got no delegates. that is sneaky and underhanded. it shows that the whole time she was doing it as a calculated move to try to get deligates in a state where Obama got none, so she lied when she said that she ddin't take her name off because it wasn't going to count. that was an actual lie.

Obama has done nothing like that. He decided to change and he informed all of his saupporters in advance that he was switching strategies, and he is not moving from doing something pricipled to something unprincipled, he is still only taking contributions directly from the people. If he had decided to go back on that and take lobbyist money, then i'd have a real problem. that would be a real issue that impacts us.

noodles_jefferson

decides2dream wrote:

personally, i don't see it the same at all. once in office...no gmae to play, except what YOU want to accomplish. yes, certainly one has to work with others, compromise at times, etc......but to me, that's the whole point of playing the game while a candidate...to WIN, to get in office...so you CAN be a part of creating the change you want to see in this country. however, i respect we all see that differently.

one is a candidate...the other an already elected official. i don't see 'free passes' for anyone.

I couldn't agree more.

noodles_jefferson

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How you conduct yourself should remain the around same at all times if you're living through your principles. You don't just throw those out when it's convenient for you to do so.

you'll have to explain what exactly is unprincipled about saying "sorry, i've decided to keep raising money the way i've been doing it, from small donations made people all over the coutry. We'll be able to raise more this way and we'll be beter prepared to go up against the republican smear machine" I applaud him for doing it. He's not tying to be sneaky, he's trying to not be at a disadvantage when the RNC goes on the attack. At least he's No john Kerry, knuckling under to the republicans.

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How you conduct yourself should remain the around same at all times if you're living through your principles. You don't just throw those out when it's convenient for you to do so.

i agree.
however, i don't necessarily see it as a matter of principle here. that's my point. however, i most definitely see things in many shades of grey. i don't think obama in this instance is not 'living through his principles'.....i see him changing his mind, making a new judgement call...of what will best serve his campaign, and the country. i think the idea might be of serving the 'greater good'......getting elected, if that's what you personally think will be the best outcome - yes, ofr yourself, but also to serve the american people. again, i don't have a problem with that. if you view it as bending or breaking his priniciples, so be it, but i do not.

noodles_jefferson

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no interest in arguing about it, i feel the way i feel and you feel the way you feel. One thing is clear, though, there are two guys wth a shot at being president in 2008. Obama and Mccain. Between those two, the choice is clear. I'll sleep fine at night knowing i voted for Obama.

fuck

sweetpotato wrote:

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "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."


sounds like a perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation. i have no problem with it.

If Obama had to crack an old woman's neck in order to keep in 'the game' his supporters would probably find a way to excuse that as well.

It's amazing to witness how brainwashed people can be.