Obama-McCain: Public financing

Campaign finance is exactly like NCAA rules. Too complicated, universally broken, and nobody, but nobody gives a damn.
Whining that one's opponent has more money than you doesn't project the air of a winner. As long as this society is built on psychopathic individualism, which is to say for longer than any of us will be alive, THAT's what this dispute will look like to voters.

 

Here are a couple GOP mouthpieces : on the subject:

The New York Times: "The excitement underpinning senator Barack Obama 's campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr Obama has come up short of that standard with this decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election."

The Washington Post: "Mr Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculations. He made a different choice ... "

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold: "...not a good decision".

 

As was said on this thread, Obama will get criticized fairly for doing it. It's also an overall net gain. You don't pass up your biggest competitive advantage.

 

It's possible to admit that the candidate you support is flawed and makes bad decisions. Yet, there's enough overall positives to earn said support. It's called being an adult.

For example, Bill Clinton was kind of a dirt bag, but he was an effective President.

And for further reading, I thought David Brooks column was interesting, over the top in the criticism, but interesting. Essentially, he's saying Obama is Mr. Nice Guy on the outside, but a calculating meanie on occasions. And my reaction to that would be, "So?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp

The Two Obamas

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. . .

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

 

I like the alliterative descriptions of liberals>

"limousine liberal"

"lakefront liberal"

What other kinds of liberals are there?

 

Latte limousine lakefront liberals?

 

I think while the 10 point list is certainly a long and cumbersome tome, it can be condensed down well enough to get the relevant points across.

The average voter doesn't neccesarily want to hear how they flipped, just what issues they did it on.

 

Obama wouldn't have gotten this far without being an incredibly talented politician. Duh.

He loses West Virginia, he rolls out John Edwards the next day and forces Hillary Clinton to disappear for 48 hours. It was cold, calculating and brilliant. Doesn't make him a bad guy, it makes him a winner.

 

What this really points out is the blatant hypocrisy of liberals.

For decades now, the left told us how we have to have campaign finance reform and spending limits. But when they're guy has more money, they laud him being the first candidate since Watergate to buck the system.

Kind of like when their guy in the White House had a history of sexual harassment and maybe even rape. Then, the women's rights movement really didn't mean that much.

 

Hypocrisy. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Also, does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that the GOP is slamming a Democrat for NOT taking public funds?

 

I find it incredibly ironic that the Democrats are all into limiting money spent on campaigns, until they suddenly have more money thanks to George Soros -- who, by the way, isn't even an American.