When Obama made his long-expected decision to opt out of public financing, the media went berserk in a fit of phony outrage acting like Obama's small donor advantage was somehow unfair to McCain's legion of fat cat backers. Even at DailyKos, some misguidedly expressed disapproval at what they saw as Obama's inappropriate attempt to portray his decision as "declaring independence from a broken system." While the ethical reasoning Obama's decision has already been vindicated by the swarm of 527s that have been cropping up to oppose him, one of which was openly working together with McCain confidants Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.
But 527's are only part of the problem. Over at JedReport, Jed has explained why Obama's alleged "flip-flop" was a matter of political survival, as John McCain's campaign is funneling millions into an independent expenditure committee while planning to rip off $84,100,000 from American taxpayers.
Democrats! Rise Up....let's put a Democrat in the White House!
Just like many of you here, I have shared with this community my concerns, anger, and shame about the FISA bill. Just a few minutes ago, I read an article which just slapped me in the face. I almost feel like someone just threw some cold water on my face and I am waking up from a bad dream or is it from a nightmare? Are we falling prey to the Republican machine once more? Back to the future: 8 More years of Republicans....NOOOOOOOOO Wake up...
I have been saying it over and over to my friends, as I visit many liberal blogs: We are being invaded by the Enemy! Republicans are amongst us and posing as Liberals, creating more mayhem, division, and hatred. To make matters worse, they are being helped by the MSM which spends days and hours micro analyzing what the Obama camp said, what Hillary think, with title as ludicrous as "Democratic DISUNITY" or "Clinton, Obama, DRAMA"....catchy phrases or subliminal messages?
"The public financing of presidential elections, as it exists today, is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system," Obama said, adding that [this wasn't] an "easy decision" for him.
Today's Times op-ed page reads like an all out assault on the sensibilities of anyone who might even be thinking of voting for Obama!
What the hell are they thinking?
First, you have Thomas F. Schaller (The South Will Fall Again)saying there's no way Obama can win the south because, OBTW, it's still the home of crazy Confederates who'd never vote for a black man.
Then you have David Brooks (Obama's Money Class) trying to villianize the new (democratic) upper-class created by the information revolution because - god forbid - they came upon their riches through education and luck, as opposed to inheriting it from some great crime perpetrated by some far away ancestor.
Finally, there is some loony bin named Jack E. Caveney (sorry, couldn't find a link to this idiot, you'll have to read him in meat space) from Hinsdale, IL, who obviously plunked down his personal fortune (or was it?) to buy the corner of the op-ed page to rant about how the oil companies are being strangled by the Democratic Party because they can't put an oil well into anything they want.
"It ain't what you don't know. It's what you think you know that ain't so that's dangerous."
I was reminded of this pithy little saying last week, when confidence in Barack's lead in a few recent national polls, his turning away from the traditional public campaign financing system, and the uproar over his announcement of support for the latest FISA bill all collided and left me contemplating a few disturbing possibilities.
As someone who is deeply concerned about his FISA position, I toyed with the idea of withholding a contribution this month to express my displeasure. But a little investigation convinced me that withholding a contribution could be more damaging than I expected, that strengthening his coalition of supporters is more essential now than ever to winning in November, and that his FISA turn may have more to do with specific weaknesses in his polling than anything about the Fourth Amendment.
CNN reporting today that in author Alan Silverleib's analysis, Obama's rejection of public financing won't hurt.
But Russ Feingold is quoted:
"This is not a good decision," said Sen. Russ Feingold, co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. "While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not. The entire system must be updated."
From my original Blog on DNC.org, but now with added information to clarify.
"Oh, how I love Howard Dean, let me count the ways... A. 50-state-strategy B. New DNC Policy. I'm sure most of us already have looked at this, but I do have some questions about it. Can we have a discussion here about what it means?"
**According to Sam Stein, in an article at Huffpo:
During a private fundraiser last month, Sen. Barack Obama said he was "considering" voluntarily restricting the amount of money he could raise in a general election from campaign donors.
"We need to separate money from political influence. It's an experiment in open source politics," Obama told a crowd of supporters in Silicon Valley. "One thing that I am considering, and my advisers might not like this: I may limit campaign contribution amounts per person to less than the federal limit in the general election."
Campaigns run on money. Staff has to be paid, venues rented, ads bought, transportation gassed and ticketed. Most candidates for their party’s nomination don’t drop out as a direct consequence of losing one too many contests, they drop out because after they start losing, their campaign contributions drop off and they run out of money.
Repugs hate McCain more than we knew.....and he's starting to realize that the wallets are closed.
McCain can't keep the Strayed Talk express in his own lane. After going for public financing, then reneging, violating the rules, he's going back to the public funds. So now he's giving back $3 million (only??) to donors and looks like he's gonna take the taxpayers' $84 million (which frankly is more than he seems to be able to raise, and what Obama can take in over just a couple of months)
Boston Globe:
The move is largely procedural, and McCain's campaign said yesterday that it has not yet decided whether to accept public funding or to raise money on its own for the November presidential election. But the decision to return checks - which was made as the Democratic candidates announced raising $60 million combined in March, nearly as much as McCain had raised for the entire campaign through February - indicates that McCain is laying the groundwork for doing so.
Senator Hillary Clinton's no-holds-barred tactics continue today, with a letter from 20 of her leading fundraisers to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
It pay-to-play at its most brazen.
I don't think it will work. I do not think Pelosi is easily bullied. But I, for one, want to send a message back to these big donors that their money won't buy the presidency.
According to Michael Luo of the New York Times Politics Blog, the Clinton campaign's debts at the end of February exceeded usable cash on hand. With $21.5 million of campaign contributions earmarked exclusively for the general election, Clinton had only $11.7 million of primary funds on hand, less than the outstanding total of $8.7 million in miscellaneous debt plus the $5 million that Hillary Clinton loaned her own campaign in January.
This news is unrelated to a debunked misreading of Los Angeles Times story that raised (quickly answered) questions about the $35 million dollars that the Clinton campaign raised in February.
John Edwards asked the question of the night in Las Vegas.
To paraphrase, "What do corporate donors expect in return for donations?"
No matter who you support in this race and who you have donated money to. Chances are there is a lobbyist, PAC or special interest that has given more cash to your candidate than you did. Take a look at the top donors, especially in the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Do you think that Goldman Sacks, Big Pharma and Excelon energy have the same interests that you do? When your candidate gets elected whose calls do think they will be taking?
Former Sen. John Edwards Thursday said he will accept public financing for his presidential campaign, and challenged his chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to follow his lead.
"This is not about a money calculation," Edwards told CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley on his way to an event in Durham, New Hampshire. "This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."
It's good Edwards stood up for the public finance vehicle he shackled himself too - good if you are a multi-national corporation that won't be hearing from him much longer in pricey ad's. As far as an impact on his chances for 08's Democratic nod - he might as well have started "if nominated I will not run" as have taken that high ground to a long sabbatical.
One of the traditional laments during primary season is that the media devotes disproportionate coverage to the two current front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Dennis Kucinich is probably closer on the issues than the other candidates.
Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are the three most experienced, and the three most often ignored.
The person with, on the surface, the strongest objection to the two-horse narrative is former VP-nominee John Edwards.
But, he too, is destined to be an also-ran. The only question is when it becomes official.
Before you leap to a conclusion,and how it affects our Presidential primary process, have a look at the spin and dissembling by our congressional incumbents positions (and Prez candidate ) over impeachment.
My argument here is Democrats are being "prudent" or politically avoiding impeachment because it suits certain candidates, in particular one candidate to avoid like the plague any and all notions of "impeachment".
When we see the pathetic, cowardly, fumbling, stammering haltingly inane Liar in Chief put out his daily whopper, do we want a Democratic sub?
I mean a Democratic liar for a Republican liar. I know we don't.
We need a vigorous, thorough vetting, and a truthteller. more on the jump
