Unlike the more 'humble' vets with more integrity, Insane McCain is trying to run on his POW status. For shame!

We may forgive McCain because he may be a bit senile; but Senator McCain needs to know that patriotism IS NOT only service in the armed forces. Not all Americans who serve their country well can be in the armed forces!

Those individuals who VOLUNTARILY sought to improve their communities as Community Organizers, rather than cashing out their Columbia/Harvard education, ARE ALSO doing patriotic service to improve America.

Barack Obama is as much an American Patriot for his public service as John McCain is.
So this grandstanding and warmongering only gets America Iraq, waste of young lives, limbs and mental health, and the EMPTYING of the Nation's Treasury.

The only reason Americans will vote for the vision-less and Insane McCain come November would be that Americans have been dumbed down to a state of lowered expectation and lowered self-esteem by the present clueless Administration.

I think Obama is wise in saying that they will discuss the parameters when and if he is the Democratic nominee. In all contracts, there are conditions and those conditions need to be abided by by both parties. Moreover, there needs to be some condition(s) I would imagine that takes into consideration whether there is a 3rd party candidate like a Michael Bloomberg if he were to enter the race (and how that would affect the cap on financing for both Obama and McCain).

It is just prudent to not formally agree to something until all the i's are dotted and the t' s are crossed. Since not all states have even voted yet and since it is not clear if either of the Democratic candidates will have enough votes before the DNC convention in Denver, there is no reason to agree to this proposal formally at this point in time.

But it sounds to me like Obama is open to this cap based on his wording / reaction above. No lawyer (let alone politician) in their right mind would agree to a specific agreement (in this case, cap on spending) until more particulars of the contract have been solidified. This seems very premature to me, and I am not even an attorney yet!

:) Lisa

Hi Obma edw,

As in any contract, there are discussion points, which then become the "provisions" in the contract. If Obama were to agree to this right now and should he become the Democratic nominee, what would happen if Bloomberg were to enter as a 3rd party (or even worse, Hillary Clinton were to decide to campaign as a 3rd party). Then what...neither Obama or McCain could get additional financing...and both could possibly lose the election through trying to be straight-shooters and, ergo, handicapping themselves. Then, the 3rd party candidate could advertise ad nauseum, and both Obama and McCain might not be able to defend themselves, etc. That is ridiculous!

This is why you need to "discuss" the specific points in such a contract before you agree to it / sign on the dotted line. And BTW, I don't even see Hillary Clinton considering such a concept, which I think she should but I know she won't (she can't manage her - or her campaign's - finances anymore than she can tell the truth or than she can figure out what her message of the day is...so she would not want to be caged into only being able to spend $85M during the general election).

:) Lisa

Hi home brew,

A year ago, I don't think anyone anticipated the infighting and political battle that has brewed on both sides of the aisle. I don't know but would imagine that Obama was thinking that there would be 1 nominee from the Republican side and 1 nominee from the Democratic side. So, if there is a 3rd party, that does change the scene (at least in my opinion).

As for your 3rd party approach, that is not a bad approach at all - I personally like it. I think should Clinton somehow "steal" the nomination, that is exactly what will occur - Obama becoming a 3rd party candidate (or probably more accurately, the Democratic party itself will have fractured into 2 parties).

But if that were to occur, I think being limited to $85M would be bad for both Obama and McCain (as Hillary Clinton would presumably not be obligated to play by these same rules). I guess my thought is all people in the race should be bound by the same rules...and I *think* that is what Obama and McCain were originally saying.

:) Lisa

Lisa - I agree, Obama has some cover for a while. He doesn't want to seem presumptious, making deals with the general election opponent while a nomination opponent is still running.

But he will have to consider this. I think he can survive breaking the deal, but I think he would do better by reaffirming the deal. Obama can match or better McCain's appeal with independents, and because of Bush all the wind is behind the Democrats this time. Go ahead, and agree to the even playing field with campaign financing.

At least that's my advice, but I'm guessing Axelrod deserves some benefit of doubt in his ability to come up with a good strategy without me, lol.

Good try Lisa!!! Typical of the way Obama and his supporters try to have things both ways. Say one thing, then actually do another. Just like yesterday it was superdelegates don't coutn, shouldn't decide nominations then find out he has actually lobbied them just as much as Hillary and given more money. Now it's change our tune on this. Don't make excuses, Obama knew there would be ebbs and flows, and different circumstances in the election process. No one made him make that promise, he chose to do it. As part of his claim to be different, to be ethically better than others; as part of his claim to not take PAC money and for campaign finance reform. But now that's he the one taking advantage of it it's somehow okay, different! You can't have it both ways, if you're going to be different, honest and ethically better, then do it. If not, and only when convenient as Obama is doing then you're no better, no different than any other politician. And in this case you turn into being a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!! John McCain will beat Obama in the general election by at least 10 percentage points.
All I can say is Gore in 2012. Maybe then people will vote with their heads and think about it, as well as with their hearts and emotion instead of just emotionally like this election. At least on the Democratic Side.

Just agree, and take on McCain with equal funding.

Obama can do well on foreign policy, in which they aren't that different except for Iraq and Iran - and McCain's statement about being in Iraq for a hundred years isn't going to play well, I don't think. Remember the big hit Obama took from Clinton was for being naive regarding targeting bin Laden, and McCain has an identical position.

On what may well eclipse foreign policy as a driving issue, the economy, Obama can't be tagged as innexperienced very easily when running against a candidate who admits not being for strong on economic issues.

Immigration would have been a big issue, if McCain wasn't the nominee.

Don't get me wrong. I think McCain is the strongest candidate the Republicans have in the general election, because independents like him.

But I suspect indepedents like Obama more. That's where the contest will be decided. It will be hard to really wedge them away on any obvious issues. And we're seeing that already - Republicans initially are signaling a first line of attack, and its jaw dropping in its 'you gotta be kidding me' factor. They're going after the Democrat because he's pro-choice?

New Yorker

I am not a republican or supporter of McCain but to suggest that Obama has given as much to his country as McCain because he was a community activist goes beyond the limits of decency. You can dump on McCain for a variety of political issues but the man spent over 5 years in a POW camp being tortured. He is an American hero, give him a little respect.

Firefighter - I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree with your general point. Any veteran deserves a degree of respect, and a combat veteran perhaps even more, and then someone who withstood the ordeals John McCain did, even more still.

I doubt you'll hear Obama himself trying to equate his community organizing efforts with McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton. Here in the message boards, you'll hear all sorts of stuff. But what can you do? Maybe the dumbest thing I've heard is how people claim to make up their political minds based on what someone here says.

But being a prisoner of war in the past doesn't mean an automatic slide into a November victory. Let's put these two side by side, and see what the voters think.

I think all elections should be public finnaced and/or have a cap! I hope they split and I hope Hillary runds as a 3rd party if she does not get the nomination. if she doesnt, looks like I will have to Vote McCain.....

Sorry, Iwe need someone that can "lead" not a PUPPET!

As late as Jan 29, 2008 per Kenneth P. Vogel at Polito.com, "John McCain is considering backing out of public financing now that his presidential campaign is raking in the cash." Check the record he has been weighing his options througout 2007. He has no committment to this.

Are you quoting, and what’s that worth if you are? The point is when the issue was raised in March of 2007, ” Mr. Burton from the Obama campaign stated that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent. Pursuing and agreement means just that. Apparantly McCain thought the same as Stephan Dinan -reported June 6, 2007 Washington Times that "We have not made a final decision, but we are doing what's necessary should we decide to opt into the matching fund system," McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said. Again as reported by by By LIZ SIDOTI The Associated PressTuesday, August 28, 2007:The Arizona senator quietly requested authority to receive matching funds on Aug. 10, but his campaign said he has not decided whether he would ultimately accept the money. Jan 29th was the third time. Everyone knows McCain’s money is funny and bringing this issue up out of context allows him to straddle the line. Wait and see Barack will not play, nor should he.

No one said Barack did not support public financing.

This would be an issue for Obama, he has said as recently as November of 2007 that he would accept public funding if Republican nominee also choose so.

Obama doesn't have any record to run on, its pure rhetoric, if it comes out that the promises he makes are false as well, he has nothing in the general election.