Political Punch

Spin spin spin spin go the Obama fanatics.

Obama has demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that he will do and say what is most convenient for Barack Obama at any given moment. Any pledges, promises or past statements be damned. Some "change".

Obama doesn't play by the rules. He has backers who raise millions more than the other candidates. I wonder what price he will have to pay, for all that support in the end. Money is buying Obama the nomination and he figures it will buy him the presidency. Why would he run on an equal playing field, with public financing? He also stated , the nomination for presidency should be the will of the people, but yet he has done every thing to prevent a revote in Michigan and Florida. He was not to campaign in Florida, thats why he spent 1.3 million in ads in that state prior to the primary.

The ranting here is a little absurd. We're talking about the *general* election here. Should O be the nominee, he will be running against McCain. Not only can O raise more money that McCain--McCain has *already* gamed these same campaign finance laws. Laws that bear his name. And you all think it would be a *good* idea for O to negotiate an agreement on these laws with this guy? If Clinton was in the same position, would you want her to made this deal? Please.

If Obama can't take private funds then how does Hillary get away with a foreign national (Elton John) hosting a fundraiser for her? The law says foreign nationals cannon contribute directly OR INDIRECTLY to any presidential campaign. I don't want to be restricted from voting for the candidate I support.

Um. McCain is committing a crime in the way that he busted the financing cap. You super-sleuths in the media ever going to talk about how he could get YEARS in prison for what he's doing?

Obamas word thats a laugh, this is a sterling example of his ability to be honest to even a small degree.He gave his word and now he wants to not do what he said he would.

Forget any "pledge" or promise or hint- to-consider-discussion about public financing that Obama may or may not have made. All that should go out the window.

Why is anyone even discussing Obama's finances at all?

McCain is breaking the law.

He's not breaking the campaign financing "rules", he is breaking the campaign finance LAW.

You don't make - or keep - agreements with people who have shown they have so little regard for playing fair that they will BREAK THE LAW.

McCain (and his syncophantic press corps) need a lot of nerve to even bring up the subject of campaign financing, much less criticize Obama. The only thing Obama has done is keep his options open.

McCain, on the other hand, IS BREAKING THE LAW!

(But then, under George Bush, when has that ever been a problem for Republicans?)

I bet he's going to spend the extra money on cigarettes and special cologne to throw the journalstic bloodhounds off the trail. Go get 'em Jakey!

I think Barack Obama has come up with a brilliant idea. It's great.

metryjen, you can do that (bombard your congressmen with e-mails and phone calls) now. You don't need Obama in power to do it. If he's telling you that you do, then he's trying to fool you.

If you're talking about him sending you an automatic e-mail letter that you forward on to your congressmen, then you're letting him do your thinking for you. In fact, his opponents will sign up for those same e-mails with the sole purpose of seeing what he wants you to say and then sending their own e-mail saying the exact opposite. And 'round and 'round it goes.

Minions are minions, whether they're fueled by far-right talk radio hosts or far-left liberal politicians. It will be extremely easy to fall into a pattern of simply doing what Obama says without looking too closely or questioning - and that's nothing but a replay of what we've been getting from the right for too many years now. It doesn't serve a diverse America well.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm beating up on you. I truly don't mean to. I appreciate your thoughtful reply to me.

How do some of you commenting manage to even get on the Internet, let alone post a comment. Unreal

In response:

- What could be more "public finance" than 1.2 million donors and an average donation of $200? In a system rife with corruption, lobbyists and self-interested wealthy donors, Barack's financing is about the most democratic method possible.

- From a behavioral economics perspective, there's considerable value for the campaign in securing 1 million-plus donors. Study after study demonstrates that an individual is more engaged, more firm in their opinion, and more likely to persuade others if they have contributed their own money to a cause or issue. Skin in the game makes a Barack donor a more likely advocate, voter and volunteer.

- Those arguing that he's greedy and doesn't need the money should spend 30 minutes educating themselves about our political system and the costs of running a year-long nationwide campaign. You might want to start with the immense disparity between the DNC and RNC fundraising efforts, the surfeit of 527s and the value of being able to out-spend your opponent 3 and 4 to 1.

- Those arguing about promises - fine - Barack is reneging on a promise. That you can write this and not then immediately question the shenanigans that McCain is pulling regarding the financing of his own campaign simply reeks of disingenuousness.

- Those of you stating you will vote for McCain over Obama on this - enjoy electing a man who wasn't the slightest idea about our domestic economy (apparently the recession is being cause by high tax rates!) and will accede to another 4 years of an unwinnable war.

Perhaps Obama should do what McCain did. Accept public financing. Use that public financing as collateral for a loan. Then outspend the public financing pledge.

Obama never agreed to accept public financing, he agreed to talk about it. And he is doing it right now.

Someone earlier said that most of Obama's money is coming from big contributors. This wasn't true in January and I doubt it is true today.

Coming into January, many more of Clinton's donors had already reached the $2,300 limit for individual donations. A report just completed by the Campaign Finance Institute showed that Clinton raised more than half her money in 2007 from donors who gave the maximum allowed by law. Obama, in comparison, raised just one-third of his money from $2,300 donors.

Works for me. Obama has already been engaging in public financing. A large majority of his contributions are coming from small donors (like myself) who are donating on a regular basis (I'm doing it monthly). That's about as public as financing can be. Now, I would like to see him challenge McCain to not take corporate money to show faith that the public can finance elections. Not going to happen, but it would be nice to see Obama challenge him.

Even as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I was never comfortable with excluding private money from electioneering, since it is, truly, a form of political speech. At the same time, until recently, Republicans held a huge advantage in fundraising since there are far more big money donor republicans than dems, or at least there were until recently. But with the advent of small time internet donations, the playing field has been more than leveled, at least for exceptional candidates.
Problem solved. Do away with public financing.

Yep, I buy it.

In fact I heartily endorse it. The republican goon squad is going to go after Obama with everything they've got.

Why should he agree to unilaterally disarm? Especially since his supporters do not want him to.

HoosierSue:

The beauty of the "change" slogan for the Obama campaign is that it isn't just Obama that will create it: its us. No, the Republicans aren't going to just roll over and die, but if they have hundreds of constituents pressuring them to support policies that are good for the American people (for a change) then they'll have to do it, or risk their seats. You see, it's not just about trying to get Obama president, it's about creating a movement, a new "moral majority" if you will, that create change. It's up to US.

Having more than 1 million people donate on average less than $100 dollars is probably the best form of public financing possible. Especially when compared to John McCain who would STILL have to raise money from a few wealthy individuals before getting matching funds from the government.

Had Obama been raising funds the way Clinton and McCain have and then backed off the pledge, I would have been disappointed.

Bottom line - I would want a president who would be beholden to the interests of the 1+ million people who have invested in his campaign rather than a few wealthy individuals.

Financing by massive numbers of small donors is the best kind of public financing.

I don't like government provided financing, because that leaves the gov. to decide who gets money and who doesn't. It distorts elections by providing money based on who won how many votes in previous elections.

I have donated to Edwards, then Clinton and now Obama.

Obama should opt out, if he can do it with small donors.

It's OK with me if Obama uses individual donations up to $2,300 for the general.

Obama is refusing money from federal registered-lobbyists and most PACs, and I appreciate that.

I think we're being premature. Nothing is decided.

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Obama

Realize that pursing and agreement is not the same as just up and signing one. It requires negotiations with McCain.

What many don’t seem to understand or overlook is that that agreement isn’t merely looking for a signature. That agreement would have to deal with the upcoming 527s and/or other loop holes for the swiftboating attempts by the Republicans in order for fairness. That agreement would also have to deal with the situation where McCain backs out of public financing as he has during the primary (with the legality of it still in question based upon what I last heard). It’s naïve for anyone to overlook that.

In the event that an agreement isn’t reached, Obama cannot stop raising funds for his campaign. He also can’t reveal much commitment to do so now or the funding will dry up with the perception that people don’t need to contribute (which is at the heart of what the Republicans are up to right now – hurt his funding).

Obama needs a good cashflow until the end of August so there’s no way you’re going to get a commitment out of him now. There won’t be a commitment until McCain sits down and haggles an agreement late this summer.

Most of Obama's donors may be small donors, but most of the money comes from big donors.

Obama made his pledge when he thought he would get political points out of it. Now that it's not to his advantage, he's abandoning it.

If you only have principles when they favor you, then you don't have principles at all.

He made a promise. He should keep it. If he's even 1% of the new kind of politician he claims to be, he'll keep this black-and-white, clear-as-day promise of his. Otherwise, well, he's just like everyone else, except he pretends to be better.

Ok - isn't it against the law for Clinton to accept help from Elton John? The concert is today but the Election Commission says:

U.S.C. SS 441a. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that a foreign national artist would be prohibited by 2 U.S.C. SS 441e from donating his uncompensated volunteer services to the Committee to create an original work of art for the Committee's use in fundraising. The second question raised in your request is whether the contribution exception for uncompensated volunteer services provided by an individual to a candidate or political committee would apply in the specific situation you describe. This question is not reached since the Commission has concluded in responding to your first question that the foreign, national artist may not donate his volunteer services to the Committee for the purposes described in your request. This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning application of the Act, or regulations prescribed by the Commission, to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. SS 437f.

Some of those "individuals" that Obama receives donations from are the wives and law partners of registered lobbyists. Obama takes the money from their surrogates so he doesn't have to report the lobbyist influence on his own campaign. He also has 9 federal lobbyists working on his campaign.

It's a joke to say that his internet fundraising is the same as public financing. He's bought and paid for by lobbyists just like the competition.

I forgot to mention - I REALLY hope he doesn't kick us small donors out of the process with accepting taxpayer funding. The Obama campaign has had some bumps along the road with grassroots fundraising - but in the main, it's been a great experience to participate in this way.

I'm just a student, but so far I have donated $100 to Obama's campaign. I am in favor of public financing of elections mainly so that rich people don't get all the influence. But look at Obama's campaign. 90% of his money has come from donations of $100 or less. That's impressive and very democratic in that it means we all own this campaign not just the people who donate the maximum $2300.

Obama is running a bottom-up, grassroots campaign owned by the people and I'm inspired by it!

I seem to hear a lot of sour grapes here from Hillary's supporters that Obama lies. Address the question, please.

I also have one word for you. Bosnia.

McCain accepted public financing during his nearly bankrupt primary campaign and has illegally accepted private funds before the FEC approved his request to withdraw from the public financing system.

I have donated to a presidential candidate for the first time in my life. I'm 37. It was a whopping $50. My boyfriend has given $25, also for the first time in his 34 years. We are public financing.

Like we sometimes look at a spirit of the law, let's consider this the spirit of the idea behind public financing.

McCain's acceptance of the "pledge" is too cute by half, at least for anyone paying the least bit of attention. While Obama remains engaged in a battle for the Democratic nomination, McCain has already started his general election campaign with money outside the limits. What McCain wants is a limit on the amount to be spent after the conventions, once the Democratics have decided on an opponent. It's like changing the rules in the middle of the game, so that it makes it harder for the losing party to catch up.

I buy it, yes. It's clear the conservatives are gearing up for another swift boat summer and fall, and he -- Obama -- needs to prepared to fight that.

Yes - I buy it. The only way I'd push against this idea is if the networks gave free ad space to candidates. If campaigning in the modern age could be done more rationally - without 30 - 60 second "spots" but rather, full detailed infomercials run on all the major networks (and cable stations) at various times, along with serious "Frontline" style journalism, and genuine exploration of issues with real debates (complete with opening and closing statements...!) when we actually have genuine, publicly funded campaigning, I'm all in favor of nixing outside influx of cash. But in our present system - the American people choosing to fund the campaign of their choice is a far superior option to the American tax dollar being dolled out to candidates we may or may not support. Let the tax dollars fund the actual election.

He won't need it anyway because Hillary's going to win so who cares but its just like him to say one thing and do another.

One word: 527's.

As long as they exist, the limiting of funds to public financing is a joke. Obama would have to be intellectually challenged to go with $85 million public financing when GOP has hundreds of millions marked in 527's for smear campaigns. Obama isn't intellectually challenged and his money is as public as it can get right now.

Obama only does what is good for Obama, if that means he has to change his mind over and over again, so be it. He SAYS what he wants people to believe, and many simply do as they are told. It's so much easier that way. Pied Piper.

First, It would be irresponsible for Obama to take public financing when he has achieved nearly the same result with his web-based fundraising.

Second, I don't think he ever solidly promised to take public financing. The answer he gave was really nuanced.

Third, Has anyone seen how much money the Republicans' 527 groups (ex. the swift boat veterans...) are bringing in? These people will lie and smear and blanket the airwaves - and there is no limit to the money they can raise...Obama will need all he can get to combat those attacks.(as will Clinton, if she wins the nomination)

Also - Shane
(and for that matter) For those Democrats who insist upon making the profoundly absurd and completely devoid of any kind of logic threat that they will not vote for Obama if Hillary does not get the nomination (or vice versa).

WHAT are you THINKING (are you thinking)?

This is just beyond stupid. Go ahead, vote for McCain, then sign your kid up for the military. But hey, who cares as long as you are able to throw your little temper tantrum, Right? Nevermind that the economy will tank, we will be stuck in two (and probably three) wars we can't afford and that are NOT making us safer...Nevermind that the Supreme Court will be solidly corporate and solidly conservative - Kiss your civil rights goodbye...But hey, if your mad that your nominee (who is nearly identical to the other nominee) did not get the nomination - then your kids and mine can suffer for it.

Come ON!!! THINK before you vote! It is nonsense like this that landed us W for eight years.

So, Obama changed his mind. In his position I would too. Is that illegal? Did he sign a contract, take an oath?

C'mon, this is politics. McCain has been gaming the public financing system himself. In fact he may even have done some more or less illegal shenanigans, including using the promise of public money to collateralize a $4 million loan. If McCain chooses to make an issue of public financing, it will boomerang on him. This is one reason why he has been mum on the subject lately.

I agree with Senator Obama..why should taxpayers have to pay for this campaign. Why can't the american people decide?

I think Obama evolved. In nonpolitical speak, Obama lied or contemplated a distinctly different future.

It is obvious his first position was one on principle. This second one is based on his ability to raise money outside of the public financing system's rules.

I think he should just say. I am now able to raise sums of money no one contemplated last year that Democrats would be able to go to regular people and ask for money. These regular people changed the political calculation/system for me and other Democrats.

He can go back to the evils his initial position tried to resolve and say why it is not the case now.

The thing is for him to admit the difference. If flip flop applies, cozy up to it.

Wow! First we find out he snuck a few cigarettes after he said he's trying to quit and now this!!! Ohh my God! Quick, somebody unfire Penn... Obama is a total hypocrite.

Give me a break. He wasn't advocating for public financing in a vacuum. He was doing it in the spirit of taking big money out of the picture and putting the public interest back in. Since his campaign has raised money from nearly 1.5 million small donors he has achieved the spirit of his goals. Unless there's a limit put on the 527 groups that the big money republicans love to use (e.g. swift boat veterans for "truth"), he should absolutely not revert to public financing.

Now that's what I call "change you can believe in"!

Obama and his campaign have already achieved a superior reform of campaign finance. Why would he take a step backward and agree to federal financing that cannot compete with the 527 attack ads-especially since he will not use them to attack in kind. The way I see it, he has not gone back on his principals which is to get rid of the special interest money in politics.

It would be great to have a general election in which the focus is on the candidate's differences on the issues and not their personal foibles. Would publicly financing achieve that? Would tax-exempt 527 groups be banned from advertising? Would each candidate receive the same amount? Not sure how it would work.

I do agree that his campaign is in large part funded by small donators like me who have never before given a penny to any campaign.

Jake,
Since you are obviously a Clinton supporter and are obviously trying to paint Obama as a liar because Clinton is one, there are still many of us who see through your scheme. Or maybe this is your assignment at ABC. See if you can dig up dirt or exaggerate the facts to make Obama look as deceitful as Hillary. Obama has lied about smoking, agreeing to CONSIDER public financing, and lets see, maybe he does wear boxers instead of briefs. You should be writing for the Inquirer, not ABC news.

merle7 - Obama money? Does this include the sub prime fund Obama is taking at the expense of throwing homeowners out on the street?

Obama has taken ($1,180,103) from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
Obama received ($266,907) from Lehman. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($5395) from GMAC. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($150,850) from CS First Boston . [Cq.com]
Obama received ($11,250) from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($9052) from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($161,850) from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($4600) from CBASS. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($170,050) from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($1150) from Centex. [Cq.com]
Obama received ($351,900) from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]

Yeah, that's a talent alright?

OBAMA HAS RAISED $240,000,000. THE AMOUNT (ABOVE) IS BARELY CLOSE TO $3,000,000.
OBAMA RAISED MORE THAN $230,000,000 FROM WELL OVER 2,000,000 DONORS.
THAT AMOUNT ABOVE ARE NOT FROM SPECIAL GROUP AND OBAMA WILL BE INDEBT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE HE HAS RAISED MORE THAN 96% FROM THEM NOT FROM LOBBIST OR OIL COMPANY OR ANY OTHER STUPID GROUP THAT STOP GOOD THINGS FROM HAPPENING IN AMERICA.
OBAMA SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS SUPPORTERS. IF THEY WANT TO FUND HIS CAMPAIGN THEN THEY SHOULD AND BESIDES MCCAIN AND CLINTON ARE NOT COMPETIIVE WITH ALL THE MONEY FROM PACS & LOBBYIST.

Although my ideology is very closely aligned with Obama on many issues, I am voting for Mccain in November. I know alot of Obama supporters say HRC's followers won't do it, trust me many of us will.

I supported him in the run up to Iowa. I was estatic with his win. Unfortunatly, it has gone on a very dark and down hill spiral since then.
I went to Clinton's camp due to the constant about of blank hope checks he has been passing out. Change? Change what? On the war his own advisors basically said his stance was campaign speak. Same on Nafta. Same on general election funding.

I am voting for Mccain because the entire party has me disillusioned.
Hillary has too many negatives although I would be very proud to have her as president. She would never be able to get a substancial amount of good legislation passed. Barak has lost my trust with double speak, and the fact it appears he has become addicted to the large flow of cash coming in.

All he's doing is what he's been doing all along: causing people across the board to change their paradigms. How much more public can one get with public-financing if the funds are coming directly from 100,000,000 persons? Heaven! Help me to find the answer to that conundrum, please?

How on earth can you expect any fairness out of the public finance system when the FEC is completely unable to make decisions?

Given that the Republican nominee has already proven his willingness to ignore campaign finance rules, Obama would have to be stupid to opt into a system where the rules would only apply to him.

Obama should go with his supporters. He will need all the funds he can get to counteract the garbage they throw at him when Mr. Rove kicks in to help McCain win.

All I can say is, GREAT. I hope Obama rakes in millions upon millions of dollars to combat the Republican smear machine that he'll face in the general election.

Can anyone explain Obama's relationship with Father Michael Pfleger?

I don't see that he made a pledge, just an agreement to pursue one.

Obama is smart, he has run the best organized campaign of any of them; bottom up. He also knows that McCain can get by with 85 mil. because the republican 527s will be doing the dirty work for him. That is why you hear so much whining from the republican side. From my point of view, Obama's campaign is the best example of public financing.

What I would like to know is what kind of pay-back all those lobbyists working for free for McCain are going to want, if he should get elected?

OBAMA HAS LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, WHY SHOULDN'T HE LIE ABOUT KEEPING HIS WORD ON HIS PLEDGE FOR PUBLIC FINANCING LAST YEAR. THIS GUY IS SUCH A FRAUD,

Roy, how much sacrifice is too much to save Western Civilization? You think the price tag for the war is expensive now? Just imagine what the cost will be to our economy should the IEDs and suicide bombings begin at malls, sporting events and business hubs all across the United States. Staying in Iraq and militarily defeating al Qaeda abroad will not guarantee that the battleground won't return to the homeland. BUT America leaving Iraq before we have defeated al Qaeda on their main battlefield in the jihad against us, will be seen in the Muslim world as a resounding victory for al Qaeda over the mighty American military -- guaranteeing that they will bring the fight back to the United States of America. Deny it or ignore it all you want...but that IS the future of America if we let al Qaeda win in Iraq.

Incidentally, al Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq at least six months if not a year before we invaded.

What's the big deal? The whole idea of "getting money out of politics" and implementing public campaign financing is to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists and special interest contributions; Obama has already pledged not to take them and has found enormous success in piecemeal online fundraising, so why should he opt out of it?

I could care less if Obama opts out of public financing. With so much on the line including Iraq, global warming, the economy, education, health care, it would be foolish NOT to take advantage of your huge fundraising capabilities to finally end this reign of Republican error. I say throw the kitchen sink. They've been doing it for years while trampling on everything we hold dear. It's time to stop the madness. Besides, for McCain and the Republicans, public financing is a joke. The RNC and 527s will simply do the dirty work. Blow them out of the water, Obama.

I think Obama assumes two things: one, the success of his primary fundraising will falter in the general election, as people who's spirit is willing but wallets faltering run out of money, and he has to rely then on assumption number two, that he'll gobble up the lion's share of Hillary's donor base in the general election.

His first assumption, that people will flat out run out of money, is spot on. Already, his monthly totals have plateaued, and even slipped, comparatively speaking.

His second is dicey. It really depends on whether party loyalty and a dislike for McCain will translate into keeping Democrats, particularly traditional "Reagan Democrats Who've Got Bucks", in line. Given how hard he's hammered Hillary, and how close all three candidates are on so many issues (absent Iraq), it's not hard to see how people might defect.

Obama's position makes perfect sense. In September of last year, we didn't know that McCain was going to game the system. When Obama put this proposal forward, he rightly assumed McCain would play by the rules, and that he could be trusted to honor the spirit and letter of an agreement he entered into when it came to campaign finance.

But in January of 2008, everything changed. We saw incontrovertible documentary evidence that McCain was gaming the campaign finance system. And I'm sorry, how can you trust the pledge of a man who is gaming the system?

I understand people in the media have great personal affection for McCain. But actions matter, too. And his actions in the primary on campaign finance simply aren't above board. Obama would be a fool to believe McCain's campaign would honor the letter and spirit of an agreement in the general when they didn't honor one in the primary.

McCain may have championed public finance, but his commitment to it seems to be "do as I say, not as I do." Obama would be a fool to give up the low-dollar donor fundraising advantage that is a direct consequence of his broad-based appeal and tie his own hands simply to benefit someone whose campaign depends on bundlers, PACs, and lobbyists, and who isn't playing by the rules in the primary.

Obama demonstrated poor judgment by underestimating the efficacy of his candidacy then. He was a political fool to make a pledge and is coming off as disingenuous for going back on his word. He is a typical politician after all.

I buy it. Even if he did pledge it would be absolutely stupid to honor the pledge. He is publicly financed by small donors ($106 so far) like me. If he and McCain were both in the official public financing system, Obama would be at a significant disadvantage because of Republican 527s. The only way Obama should agree to the official public financing system is if both campaigns agree to rein in the 527s. The Supreme Court decisions make that improbable.

Obama's numbers speak for themself. He is getting public financing. He's the only candidate refusing PAC donations. He's the only candidate refusing money from registered lobbyists.

The debate is pointless. Right now, whether or not McCain accepts public financing, he is setting up a system by which he will see rich donor contributing tens of thousand of dollars to his party, all legal under the current system. Even if he goes for public financing, he will 2300 dollars a donor. Meanwhile, he'll have dozens of 527s with no regulations on their contributions, doing much of his dirty work for him.

And what will Obama have? A vastly distributed small donor base, numbering in the millions, including some fat cats, but also including millions of ordinary Americans.

If our aim is to elect a candidate not dependent on special interests, one who can take political risks that might lose him the fat cats and still survive, then Obama is a superior candidate with a superior funding mechanism. If our intention is to value formalities over realities, then we ought to vote for McCain, and let him and his Lobbyist saturated campaign run.

Got to hand to this slick Used Car Salesman, he lies daily, said he was not in the pocket of lobbyist, but it turns out he his.
Yes he has done so much for Racism, if that means making it worse.

If Obama wins this country is doomed to put it litely, Hilary would not even be able to destroy it as bad.

He is the most Liberal Racist senator serving at this time.

Tony, I'm asking this seriously and with respect. I often hear Obama supporters say that he will change Washington. How exactly do you see him doing that? Do you expect Republicans to rally around his liberal ideas? Do you expect that Kennedy and Kerry, who couldn't get elected president themselves, don't have plans for Obama to do their bidding? Do you think he's going to decree that the influence of lobbyists be gone and they magically are? (And you do realize that there are some good guys among the lobbyists, don't you?) Do you think the question of race in America is going to be put to rest once and for all? (And what happens if Obama has as tragic a presidency as Bush 43 has had? Remember, he ran on "change" too. Will that effect race relations in a negative way?) Please share with us your vision of a President Obama. Thank you.

A pledge is good only for people who value the worth of their word. For a habitual liar, one's word means nothing.

I think Obama has certainly proven himself. His came into this race with nothing but a dream and is now the front runner. You have to give him credit. He has overcome racism, party politics, attacks in his religion and the Clinton "machine".
Whether he gets the nomination or not you have to give him credit.

For the person who apparently thinks Obama is talking about no public funding for the primary, the pledge he signed was indeed for the general election. I felt it very telling and most interesting that during the debates, he said that he would meet with America's worst enemies without pre-conditions or negotiations. He then went on to say later in that very same debate that he would have to negotiate with McCain before following through on the promise he signed to only use public financing.

Can you imagine if Hillary or McCain had made these statements? But the media never bats an eye at St. Obama. I've given up trying to figure out the media - in fact I've given up on the media. I will never again be able to hear about a serious story without going online and verifying the "facts" as they're fed to me by the media.

I have never submitted any contribution to the Public Fund on my tax return.
1. Why would I want to pay for some guy I don't want to pay for.
2. There is no public fund for the primary, so it is kind of a mute point.
3. He would be a fool to turn down the funds he can raise from small guy.
4. Clinton wouldn't use public fund neither
5. McCain is broke and cannot compete, hr has no support and I don't want him for presdident so I don't want any of the public money to help him.
6. there is too many other ways these guys can get money spent for them anyway.

The man is a politician, just like any other and a weak one at that who has massive electability issues in a general election.

He has nothing more special about him than any other politican. he has sleezy ties to lobbyists, a checkered past, makes misleading statements and is a hypocrite.

He's just a politician like any other. Vote for better policies or for who has a better chance of winning in nov.

Just don't vote for this man thinking he's any better than anyone else, because he isn't. Probably worse because he has less experience and less support to begin with so he's had to make an awful lot of deals.

He is nothing special.

I cant wait until this nightmare ends...

"HE WILL CHANGE WASHINGTON...SO, JUMP ON BOARD AND WATCH HIM & HIS TEAM RESTORE AMERICA TO ITS GREATNESS ONCE AGAIN!

OBAMA / WEBB '08"

Tom Davie has got it exactly right.

Smartprimate.... Bravo! There is nothing wromg with reminding everyone what pledges were made by "He That Walks On Water". Just Words???????????

I buy it. The more money the better. Beat McSame already/.

He is looking at the individual voter...and I think up until recently he wanted to work something out because I believe he wanted to stick to that but then he realized this public finance thing ...is really fake because of all the 527's (and to be honest on both sides)

The 527's are political and corporate/wealth/special interest organization financed and when they are throwing the numbers at either candidate the election is thrown out of whack...

This argument is the best one in the short term...

Yes, I buy it Jake!

I have donated several times to Obama and I have never donated to any politician before in my life...I'm 42! Obama will not owe anyone except for the Americans who contributed ANYTHING since his campaign was funded by us. HE WILL CHANGE WASHINGTON...SO, JUMP ON BOARD AND WATCH HIM & HIS TEAM RESTORE AMERICA TO ITS GREATNESS ONCE AGAIN!

OBAMA / WEBB '08

Obama will talk to the crazy one in Iran who advocates the destruction of Israel and working day and night to build the "bomb" so he can use it on us.

Meanwhile, he will not even speak to President Uribe of Colombia because he would rather see Hugo Chavez rule all of South America.

If you want to bring disaster to America vote for Obama. He is just a cheap politician from the south side of Chicago plotting revolution with Rev. Wright his mentor.

What is wrong with this picture?

Obama is an empty suit.

A sock puppet for John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to use to get rid of the Clintons and take over the party again.

They are doing this because they themselves couldnt ever win anything.