Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama chose winning over his word
news.yahoo.com — Since Obama broke his promise of using public financing to fund the election, one has to wonder what other promises he will break for the sake of mere money.
jontalisman- 229 diggs
- digg it
- lopezdash, on 06/20/2008, -47/+50Obama breaks a promise to his supporters... its not a big step to break his promises to the American people.
- P5ycHo, on 06/20/2008, -27/+7Moron
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/20/2008, -9/+12Obama? I agree.
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -10/+4Quiet, you digg anti-Obama shill. Obviously he's not a moron if he's deciding to go the route of raising more money than raising less. McBush won't stick to the public financing with 527's and such.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/20/2008, -9/+12Obama? I agree.
- tidu, on 06/20/2008, -18/+16You can't change the rules without breaking them.
- alphasixtyone, on 06/20/2008, -9/+13riiiiight. anything to ease your anxieties about obama
- novaculus, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3@ tidu-
You can change the rules without breaking them, particularly rules of this sort. There is a process to follow in order to change the rules.
But in fact Obama is not breaking elections rules by opting out of public financing. He is breaking his word, not breaking the rules, unless you mean the rules of honest and ethical conduct.
But I dug you up for revealing just how deluded Obamatons can be.
- Dzonatas, on 06/20/2008, -13/+2The article says nothing about Obama making a promise to accept public financing. Even if he said he would do it only if McCain does it still doesn't say that he would do it.
- Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -3/+8I'm assuming the Republicans here agree that, had relative fundraising positions been reversed, McCain would have done the same?
Personally, I think we need to virtually require public financing of elections as part of a package of other changes, but...- aliengoods, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3but...
The money the 527's spent in the last presidential election dwarfed the money that was spent by either candidate.
- aliengoods, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3but...
- KMye, on 06/21/2008, -3/+13This isn't any kind of monumental, character-destroying new development, especially if people have actually been looking critically at Obama for the last several months, but hopefully sometime soon most people will realize he's just another ***** politician and make their choice based on his and McCain's positions rather than some nebulous concept of "Change".
- Terr01, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Huzzah! Three cheers for ACTUAL POLICY over "would (not) like to have a beer with him" and "But is he tough" etc.
- EntropyMan, on 06/21/2008, -12/+5People are assuming the summary is accurate and it isn't. Obama didn't promise or give his word to take public financing. What he'd said was (paraphrasing):
1. He wanted to take public financing. He felt it was important to do so.
2. He would do so if both campaigns agreed on limits to the money that routinely operates "outside" of the federal limits that come with public financing (i.e., soft money, 527s, etc..)
3. He'd do everything in his power to see #2 happen.
4. The campaign staffers met, but came to no agreement.
5. McCain is clearly using a lot of 527 money to smear Obama, which means no deal can be reached and all bets are off.
Notice there are no ??? or Profit steps. Both campaigns are simply doing what's in their direct best interest. The only thing you can really ding Obama for is not living up to #3 to the maximum extent possible -- but maybe there was really nothing else he could do to convince McCain to curb his outside spending.- KMye, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6"If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"
Obama: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests...My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) 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."
http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/m ...
I don't disagree both candidates are doing what they think will most likely win them the election, and I don't think Obama's terrible for doing that, but don't you think it's stretching it a bit to claim that he's made this decision because of fear of the 527s, rather than a realization he'll be able to out-raise McCain 3-1 (which certainly goes against the spirit of his November pledge)?- EntropyMan, on 06/21/2008, -8/+1First, thank you for including the full quote and not just the first sentence, as some people do. I think the quote reflects what I summarized above.
As to your final point, when you factor 527s and RNC money in, I'm not sure that Obama would really outspend McCain overall. If you could somehow account for these 527 viral smear campaigns in real dollar terms, McCain is raking in millions of "in-kind" contributions (if that's the best word for it) that don't really count in any total.
I think it's pretty clear that Obama's goal was to have a "fair fight," limited to public money and with those inherent limits. McCain has run away from his campaign finance reform roots. I don't think Obama's proposal is feasible when campaigns start seeing the realities, which is why the system is broken. But it was worth a shot.
I just don't think this equates to breaking his word in any way shape or form. The deal didn't work out, and both sides are to blame for having their self interests. But no unilateral promises were made here.
- EntropyMan, on 06/21/2008, -8/+1First, thank you for including the full quote and not just the first sentence, as some people do. I think the quote reflects what I summarized above.
- KMye, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6"If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"
- P5ycHo, on 06/20/2008, -27/+7Moron
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -37/+35It is clear he is not a man of his word and thus unworthy of being our president.
He has spent his political career taking guns away from people while going to Idaho and saying he wasn't coming for their guns. He said he could never turn his back on "reverend" Wright and that he sat in the pews of that church for 20+ years without becoming aware that Wright is a bigoted anti-American hatemonger.
He has lost all credibility and has showed the American people what a liar he is.- enki25, on 06/20/2008, -11/+8Unlike McCain who has never changed his views on anything over his full 90 year lifespan.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -7/+9If the best you have is "he's better than the other guy" you are admitting he sucks and is a liar
- enki25, on 06/20/2008, -7/+7No it's not the best I have, but apparently the best you have is "your guy sucks because he's not taking government money!" This means you are admitting that McCain sucks and that you are a retard.
- woofer1125, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1agreed!(w/ enki25)... and I'm Canadian.
im not speaking for every canadian out there,
but i think,
if republicans win.. USA if *****.... ROYALLY.. ON A SILVER PLATTER WITH CHEESE.
he's a Neocon, and will funnel lots of YOUR money into a war.
its either obama takes a nickle from the ppl and gives back a dollar,
or grandpa McCain, taking your dollar when you sleep.. like an evil tooth fairy with dentures.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -7/+9If the best you have is "he's better than the other guy" you are admitting he sucks and is a liar
- notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -4/+1I loves my gun. Lllloves my gun!
- EntropyMan, on 06/21/2008, -4/+3@Cashman, considering you made up your mind a long time ago, pretending to be outraged over a non-issue is really silly. No promises were made, and no word was broken. It's all in your head.
- enki25, on 06/20/2008, -11/+8Unlike McCain who has never changed his views on anything over his full 90 year lifespan.
- MarkusGarvey, on 06/20/2008, -16/+5what? ....
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/06/19/new ... - eccitante, on 06/20/2008, -19/+11""Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants....It certainly will give Obama an extraordinary advantage over McCain and Republicans who have struggled to match Democratic fundraising this election cycle. Within hours, Obama showed his financial might by rolling out a 60-second television ad in 18 states, including several that have been reliable GOP strongholds.""
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -26/+20Wonder how many CEO's and corporate donors he has and how much did his fellow Bilderbergers give him?
He seems to be the choice of the federal reserve and the international bankers.
Why anyone in their right mind would support a gun grabbing rights stealing lying leftist liberal lawyer is a mystery.- enki25, on 06/20/2008, -9/+8You're a paranoid freak. Apply some of this skepticism to the GOP or stfu.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -7/+8If the best response you have is that he is better than another guy you have just admitted he's a lying skunk.
Gee, now why would anyone vote for a lying skunk?
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -7/+8If the best response you have is that he is better than another guy you have just admitted he's a lying skunk.
- enki25, on 06/20/2008, -9/+8You're a paranoid freak. Apply some of this skepticism to the GOP or stfu.
- orientis, on 06/20/2008, -11/+21I don't see what the big deal is... Anyone wanna put it in little words for me?
- asskicker32, on 06/20/2008, -3/+27The public funds would cap them both at the same amount that they could spend because if you take the public funding, you cant raise any more yourself. Obama had agreed to use the public funds before, because he thought it would be fine. However, based on his insane levels of grassroots fundraising, he believes he can raise more without the public funds and will attempt to do his own fundraising.
This harkens back to the olden days when people would buy elections and that is why McCain is (not really but feigning) upset. The Repubs are generally richer and can spend more personal money from the RNC bank and if they had both used the public funds, they would have the advantage by having more in the bank than the democrats in the DNC bank. Obama is going to raise his own money to try to make more than McCain to pay for campaign expenses and tv spots.
It doesnt seem like that big a deal to me, even though he is "going against his word". The Repubs are upset because Obama is more popular and will probably raise more money, thereby decreasing the advantage in spending that the Repubs have out of the RNC Bank account.- orientis, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Thanks mate. I was looking so hard for the scandal I couldn't see the mundane politics. Your answer was genuinely helpful.
- EntropyMan, on 06/21/2008, -3/+9@asskicker is right, except for the part about Obama going against his word. Don't accept the Republican talking points at face value. Obama said he'd live with the federal limits if McCain would also ageee to curb 527 money (which Obama has done unilaterally), so it was more of a fair fight. McCain wouldn't, and has been using 527 money to smear Obama already. So all bets are off.
- orientis, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Gotcha.
- asskicker32, on 06/20/2008, -3/+27The public funds would cap them both at the same amount that they could spend because if you take the public funding, you cant raise any more yourself. Obama had agreed to use the public funds before, because he thought it would be fine. However, based on his insane levels of grassroots fundraising, he believes he can raise more without the public funds and will attempt to do his own fundraising.
- 03FightOn, on 06/20/2008, -25/+29Change....but can we believe in him?
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -12/+21He has shown us we cannot believe anything he says. His word is worth nothing.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -12/+2And Paris is the capital of Germany.
Why should we believe anything you have to say? - HiCaP, on 06/21/2008, -1/+9His words are nothing, they're not even his, they come from a teleprompter.
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -9/+2Yes, and 70-something year old McCain's come from his own head./sarcasm McCain needed a Lieberman to tell him what to say in Iraq.
- novaculus, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3@bullsmeller:
cashman makes a statement based on observed facts, i.e., Obama has demonstrably said one thing and done another on more than one occasion.
You respond with an inaccurate irrelevancy and a personal attack, and do not address either his statement or the accuracy of the facts supporting it.
BRILLIANT! You are a GENIUS!
But there is so much more. Cashman here raises only the "liar" issue. Since he is doing this ***** while proclaiming himself to be the harbinger of the "New Politics", honest, transparent, miraculously hovering above the filthy fray of the "Old Politics", we also have the "Hypocrite" issue. Or is it really just the "Old-style South Side Chicago Politician" issue? Or maybe the "Con Man Fraud" issue?
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -12/+2And Paris is the capital of Germany.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -12/+21He has shown us we cannot believe anything he says. His word is worth nothing.
- Apokalyps2547, on 06/20/2008, -24/+77So he's NOT taking taxpayer money?
...and that makes him a bad person?
I don't follow.- tidu, on 06/20/2008, -11/+16he's... *gulp*... a liberal! Sound the alarms!
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -15/+39no, it doesn't make him a bad person. the conservatives are just completely out of ideas for how to criticize Obama, so they're sinking to extraordinary hypocrisy. if Obama had taken the public money, the same conservatives would be whining about how he's wasting taxpayer money, no doubt.
- mnemy, on 06/20/2008, -7/+9"extraordinary hypocrisy"? Seems like their standard attack plan to me.
- alphasixtyone, on 06/20/2008, -11/+9no, it's his hypocrisy that is a bad thing
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -9/+3well in that case Obama is definitely your candidate, as McCain is a much, much more hypocritical politician than Obama, and is well documented as such.
http://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-05/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/16/ ... - alphasixtyone, on 06/21/2008, -5/+5and why are my choices limited to obama and mccain?
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -9/+3well in that case Obama is definitely your candidate, as McCain is a much, much more hypocritical politician than Obama, and is well documented as such.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -3/+8It doesn't matter what *you* think about how he should spend taxpayer money; it's that he completely flip-flopped on a position. But whatever, go ahead and bury me.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -10/+3thats like flip-flopping on having a burger for lunch instead of a salad. who really cares?
- dinot, on 06/21/2008, -9/+1It doesn't matter that you get to live. But the fact that I flip-flopped on my initial position to shoot you in the face, ***** man. I'm a bad person for flip-flopping.
Flip.
Flop.
Goddamnit that phrase misses me off.
- whaught, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4with the public funding comes a spending cap. Since he had broken records privately raising money, by opting out of public funding he gets to spend whatever he wants. He has spun going back on his word into making a statement about the public funding system, but this is clearly to his advantage.
How strong can his reservations about the public funding system be if he had previously supported it?
- rrouse, on 06/20/2008, -20/+6Obama did what a smart Republican would do, he took the path with the most money. I suspect that more Republicans will be voting for him now.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -7/+2wow, this is an excellent point.
you're right, its ideologically ludicrous to abide by the funding cap if you are a fan of the tenets of capitalism.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -7/+2wow, this is an excellent point.
- bearwoman121, on 06/20/2008, -18/+3 Politics are so much *****, that I don't know if I'm even going to vote. I haven't bothered for the last few elections. One guy is just as bad as the next. When I did vote, it was for the candidate who I thought wouldn't screw up as bad, but this year it's the same ol same ol. I was hopeful at first, but now it's down to 2 men who I don't trust. I like McCain, but what will he do to the abortion rights? If Obama wins, I don't think it will take long for some redneck to try to take him out because of his color. What to do, what to do?
- jontalisman, on 06/20/2008, -6/+3Exactly. I don't trust either of these guys to run the country. The only reason I will vote for Obama is because I believe the Democratic party is the lesser of two evils.
- savvyconsumer7, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Don't vote the lesser of two evils, because
BAD is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for America.
Alan Keyes, Independent Presidential Candidate 2008
America's Independent Party National Committee
www.SelfGovernment.US or www.aipnc.com- jontalisman, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Alan Keyes? Bwahahaha! If I wanted to vote for someone crazy, I'd just write in Pat Robertson.
- savvyconsumer7, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Don't vote the lesser of two evils, because
- jontalisman, on 06/20/2008, -6/+3Exactly. I don't trust either of these guys to run the country. The only reason I will vote for Obama is because I believe the Democratic party is the lesser of two evils.
- BlueSunshine, on 06/20/2008, -16/+27It's odd how quickly people seem to forget that Obama is a politician and not a messiah.
- DiggLive, on 06/20/2008, -12/+6Typical supporter: But.. but.. He talks all cool-like! I have to support him even though I don't know anything about his policies!
Mac users are the same way, under a spell from Steve Jobs. It's no wonder his campaign uses them. - SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2But he says he'll bring "change"?
- DiggLive, on 06/20/2008, -12/+6Typical supporter: But.. but.. He talks all cool-like! I have to support him even though I don't know anything about his policies!
- sterntastic223, on 06/20/2008, -15/+35Are you guys kidding? You'd prefer he used tax money? Oh, PS mccain has spent more than the matching funds on his campaign so he's gonna get eviscerated soon.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -9/+4It isn't the money, it is the rules, if he doesn't take any money he doesn't need to follow the rules.
It is stupid to have it that way but that's what happens when lawyers make laws.
I don't mind if he didn't take the money because he hasn't even earned his salary yet, but it is the rules he is avoiding, not the money- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+2what rule did he break?
- dinot, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2the "democratic nominee is required to let the republican win" rule.
- bullcutter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1incredible, 9 negative diggs and this was the only response. must be the right one!
- samthurston, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1yeah, especially when that "stupid law" is also known as part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+2what rule did he break?
- Vigrant, on 06/20/2008, -10/+6OH, PS McCain called his wife a *****.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -9/+4It isn't the money, it is the rules, if he doesn't take any money he doesn't need to follow the rules.
- soulwarriorone, on 06/20/2008, -11/+19oh,p.s.s. everybody..."you'd prefer he used tax money?" "he doesn't want to use tax money, and that makes him a bad person?"
just a quick lesson....there has been a box on our tax returns for years giving us the opportunity to give up to $3 to the presidential election...THAT is the money he is turning down!! WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!!!! SOUND THE ALARM!!!!- EdwardBella, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2What's p.s.s.?
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1$3 from each taxpayer? What about that $4 trillion missing from the Pentagon? What the hell?
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -18/+18what's wrong with wanting to use money _donated_ to you as opposed to taxpayer money?
nothing, and if the conservatives are (hypocritically) slamming Obama so hard on this its only because their own candidate is in real trouble.
McCain would do the exact same thing if the tables were turned, but Obama just happens to be twice as interesting a candidate as he is, and that's why Obama's raised twice as much money.- lgfaphile, on 06/20/2008, -7/+13If campaign finance reform means anything the public money pledge is at the heart of it. Barry O is a fraud. The bullcutter seems to have gotten stuck.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -10/+3How could Obama have known 2 years ago that his run for the presidency was going to generate such an emotional response that he would break all campaign donation records ever?
He certainly was not counting on over 1.5 million individuals to send him money (almost 3 times as many as McCain, actually), but now that they've already sent it to him, it would be a slap in the face to his supporters if he turned it down.
So go ahead and continue to spin this one however you want, the bottom line is Obama is going to beat the ***** out of McCain in November -- with or without the extra money -- boo-ya.
ps -- if that response is the best LGF prepared you to do, you should really find another blog to receive brainwashings from.- lgfaphile, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1You really cannot deal with facts can you?
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -10/+3How could Obama have known 2 years ago that his run for the presidency was going to generate such an emotional response that he would break all campaign donation records ever?
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+1correction: Obama has raised a million or two shy of 3 times the amount of money McCain has raised.
- lgfaphile, on 06/20/2008, -7/+13If campaign finance reform means anything the public money pledge is at the heart of it. Barry O is a fraud. The bullcutter seems to have gotten stuck.
- samoan27, on 06/20/2008, -11/+18If I was confronted with the decision to break my word for hundreds of millions of dollars I must admit I doubt I'd pass. I don't think less of Obama as a person but under the temptation of money, which comes with the job, I think McCain has more integrity. As the article says, he may change his opinion on certain things, but I don't see him ever breaking a promise for money.
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -11/+7its not like Obama and McCain are choosing between Option A and Option B.
Obama is choosing to accept money donated to him willingly by millions of individuals who specifically support his campaign.
McCain doesn't have that option because his campaign donation totals are less than HALF of Obama's, so of course it would be a rallying point for conservatives to cry foul over the obvious advantage in funding Obama would have by not accepting funding limits.
Obama is going to win the general election regardless of whether he decided to accept the taxpayer funding or to accept the money legitimately donated to him by a record number of donors, so the title "Obama chose winning over his word" is ridiculous (for a number of reasons).- samoan27, on 06/20/2008, -4/+10"Obama is going to win the general election regardless of whether he decided to accept the taxpayer funding or to accept the money legitimately donated to him"...so he broke his word just for the hell of it?
Anyway the point is people change their mind all the time on issues (i.e. what I think of Universal Health care one day may not be the same in a year). But changing your mind to get personal gain is a dangerous path (i.e. believe in taxpayer funding when you're the underdog and flipping when it's no longer advantageous). While McCain is guilty of this through association, he himself has never sold his good name for lucre.- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3"While McCain is guilty of this through association, he himself has never sold his good name for lucre."
Sorry, but are you joking? Why do you think he (of all senators) was hit up by the Dubai lobbyists in the first place? Its because he's a middle-of-the-road conservative who _is_ a name, and would just as likely use it to sell the Pentagon to Saudi Arabia next.
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3"While McCain is guilty of this through association, he himself has never sold his good name for lucre."
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -6/+6It is not the money he is running from it is the rules. He has all the money he needs after the Bilderburg meeting where they decided Hillary should drop out and Obama should opt out of the federal election laws by refusing to accept the money.
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -7/+2"It is not the money he is running from it is the rules."
OK and what rule did he break?
"He has all the money he needs after the Bilderburg meeting "
he had all the money he needs before it, too.
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -7/+2"It is not the money he is running from it is the rules."
- samoan27, on 06/20/2008, -4/+10"Obama is going to win the general election regardless of whether he decided to accept the taxpayer funding or to accept the money legitimately donated to him"...so he broke his word just for the hell of it?
- bullcutter, on 06/20/2008, -11/+7its not like Obama and McCain are choosing between Option A and Option B.
- AllyOfReason, on 06/20/2008, -8/+21Are you suggesting we vote for McCain? Great idea...
/sarcasm- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -9/+8I am suggesting you don't vote for a slimeball.
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1Your two choices are Obama or McCain. If Obama is a slimeball, what is McCain? He's no saint and I'd say he's much worse than Obama. Where has the republican party led your country the last 8 years. If you want more of that, vote McCain. If you want to try something else, vote Obama.
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Vote for the lesser of the two evils? Write in the doctor.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -9/+8I am suggesting you don't vote for a slimeball.
- DuggDowner, on 06/20/2008, -14/+31Americans don't care about this nonissue.
- alphasixtyone, on 06/20/2008, -10/+7I care. I'm an american
- nblsavage, on 06/20/2008, -6/+9Ok, intelligent Americans don't care about this non-issue.
- MadMax3000, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4I don't care. McCain is just mad that BO will raise and spend more money.
- alphasixtyone, on 06/20/2008, -10/+7I care. I'm an american
- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -22/+17This isn't Barry's first lie, and won't be his last either. Wake up America, this guy is bad.
- notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -5/+5His name isn't Barry, you tard. Look up his birth certificate, and you can see his full name, the first of which is "Barack."
- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3Then why did he go as Barry for nearly 40 years?
Assmunch.- Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -1/+240 years? Source!
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3So what if he did? My legal name is Jeffrey, but I go by Jeff. That makes me a liar? A different person?
No, your argument is flawed. Thanks for trying, though. - notanidiot, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1You've been owned, just in case you didn't know. Now ***** off.
- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3Then why did he go as Barry for nearly 40 years?
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3Oh please, his promise was to TALK to the Republican nominee about public financing. He'd be ***** stupid to take public financing when he can raise so much more money from grass-roots private citizen funding.
Regardless, name a politician whom hasn't lied. McCain's record is much worse.
- notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -5/+5His name isn't Barry, you tard. Look up his birth certificate, and you can see his full name, the first of which is "Barack."
- DeskFlyer, on 06/20/2008, -7/+8Yeah because this is going to be a such a huge deciding factor when people go to the polls in November.
- fadeout, on 06/20/2008, -15/+13Stop crying just because your candidate can't raise money.
Obama's campaign and internet fund raising has rewritten the rules, he's not taking lobbyist money and he's going to raise half a billion from supporters - every day people who are going to donate maybe a hundred dollars each - without having to take a cent away from taxpayers. When I next donate I *want* him to be able to accept it!
Meanwhile the "conservative" is going to take 80 million dollars that will just pile onto the national debt.- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -8/+10The fact is the money set aside for campaigns is done so voluntarily on income tax returns as it has been since the 70's.
It does not increase the debt.- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -10/+2true, but that same money could be going towards the national debt instead. Obama sure doesn't need it.
- cashman57, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7It isn't about the money with him anyway, it is his desire to keep from following federal election laws. Now that he has opted out of the federal election rules he is free to get money from any source.The government can't sanction him for violating election laws if he is not going to be under the umbrella of those rules.
It is yet another slick lawyer move,like his claim he destroyed eight straight years of his records because he claimed to be unable to afford a file cabinet.
Just another excuse for ducking and hiding. - bullcutter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1"opt" = option.
how can he "keep from following federal election laws" if part of the law is that following it is an option?
you're trying to pin another crime on Barack that he didn't commit, and thats not even a crime. and frankly, nobody except for hardcore conservatives cared anyway (and this was because its been brainwashed into them to do so).
"Now that he has opted out of the federal election rules he is free to get money from any source"
And so? Wouldn't the true conservative be supportive of this? Besides by "any source" you are referring to the money Obama has collected by a record number of donors. Whats so devious about taking money given to you from the public because they want to see you succeed?
- cashman57, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7It isn't about the money with him anyway, it is his desire to keep from following federal election laws. Now that he has opted out of the federal election rules he is free to get money from any source.The government can't sanction him for violating election laws if he is not going to be under the umbrella of those rules.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -10/+2true, but that same money could be going towards the national debt instead. Obama sure doesn't need it.
- cashman57, on 06/21/2008, -2/+8Obama takes money from lobbyists and corporations and this will free him up to take as much money from any source as he wants to.
Donating to Obama is like punching your kids because they are going to have to pay for your mistake.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -8/+10The fact is the money set aside for campaigns is done so voluntarily on income tax returns as it has been since the 70's.
- cashman57, on 06/20/2008, -13/+14It isn't the money he's getting away from, it is the rules. He does not want to follow the rules and so he tool a loophole in typical lawyer fashion and is now free to do anything he wants as far as fundraising.
Say hello to Mr Purchased President.
then there's this
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_supports_t ... - lgfaphile, on 06/20/2008, -17/+19Barry O is a fraud.
- nblsavage, on 06/20/2008, -12/+7Go back to that sewer called LGF.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -11/+5LGF IS a fraud.
They ran an article entitled "Obama throws Kenyan cousin under the bus" without ever apologizing that it was complete *****:
A. Barack is NOT that guy's cousin
B. Barack NEVER endorsed or sponsored that guy in ANY capacity, EVER.
Here, check it out. Your savior CJ is a hypocritical lying *****:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Throws_Ken ...
The fact that anybody can willingly patronize them for "news" or "information" truly scares me. It means we're a dumber country than we need to be.- p0s3r, on 06/21/2008, -5/+9http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/im ...
Whoopsie. Guess who that is sitting in front of Obama.- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+4So? And?
That doesn't mean they're cousins, that doesn't mean Obama supported that guy in ANY CAPACITY. I dare you to find evidence to the contrary.
That picture doesn't say *****, except that they happened to be at the same place at the same time for a few seconds.
Is Bush a lying embezzeler simply because he was in a picture with Jack Abramoff? (he may be for other reasons...) - p0s3r, on 06/21/2008, -5/+8Errr... did you see the picture? What exactly do you think Obama is doing? Playing charades?
Whoopsie again.
"Obama appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga -- a Luo running for president -- at stops on Saturday in his father's native district."
http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/obama/379 ...
Obama campaigned for Odinga. A man accused of genocide and mass murder. - bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+4Did you read the paragraph right below the text you quote?
"Mutua, in the CBS2 interview, said Obama may have been caught up in ethnic politics with Odinga "using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet.''
Did you happen to read this sentence too?
"Obama did not mention Kibaki by name in his speech"
How can somebody campaign for somebody else if they don't mention their name? Anagrams?
Face it. There's no story here. Why do you think the fat fags of AM radio haven't picked it up and run with it?
So, you're a liar too. - p0s3r, on 06/21/2008, -3/+10LOL. Kibaki was Odinga's opponent. Odinga, Obama's alleged cousin, and the man accused of ethnic genocide and mass murder was playing Obama for his puppet and Obama willingly went along.
'Odinga "using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet.''' - Money quote.
- bullcutter, on 06/21/2008, -9/+4So? And?
- lgfaphile, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3Its funny how people love to criticize blogs they don't agree with, and use scatological terms to "bolster" their pathetic arguments. @Bullcutter: you seem to think it is a positive that some Kenyan pol was able to use Barry O as his stooge; but that doesn't exactly add to the Obama resume as a qualification for the Presidency of the United States. If he is such a foreign policy guru, as opposed to a naive beginner, how come some two bit pol in Africa was able to use him as his stooge. More importantly, why do the Barry O acolytes think that proves something laudatory?
- p0s3r, on 06/21/2008, -5/+9http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/im ...
- swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -6/+11Keep trying to make this a campaign issue. Trust me, it's a real winner.
- brainboy77, on 06/20/2008, -6/+5apart from the pundits, who actually cares? hands, anybody?
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1*crickets*
- ssn697, on 06/20/2008, -9/+23For the THIRD time, he never promised anything of the sort. Buried for being the same inaccurate *****.
McCain said he would, wouldn't, then would use public funding. Does that mean he lied twice? Of course not.
Show me where he PROMISED, and I will accept it. Otherwise, stop posting this crap. - DiggGeek24, on 06/20/2008, -12/+8Obama could abolish the constitution, declare martial law, nuke Iran and Obama supporters would back him.
- notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -4/+2Damn right! If Obama says its the right thing to do, I'm with him! /s
- Terr01, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4Since when are Obama supporters die-hard Bush Republicans?
- dinot, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Didn't Bush do that already?
- dunderballer, on 06/20/2008, -9/+3Though he shouldn't have made the promise, the blunder hardly compares to the harms of McCain's desire to continue a horrendously costly war with no objective. War with Iran would be inevitable under McCain. The country simply cannot afford it. Further, the reason and compassion Obama would bring to the executive office offers enormous potential for the country.
- nourkah, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3There is a law somewhere that allows the Presidential candidates to choose how their financing is done for their campaign. Either they can use tax money and they are limited in how much funding they have and then that is the only source of funding they get, or they can choose to use fund raising and other forms of getting money and have an unlimited funding ceiling. Each candidate has to agree on which method they go with. Obama hasn't done anything wrong, because if he's choosing not to use the tax money then so is John McCain.
- insomniac8400, on 06/20/2008, -4/+4I find it interesting they are calling collecting money directly from the public taxpayers of this country "private". His "private" funds are just as public as any money from the public financing system. He already screens all his donations against registered lobbyist lists and considering no one person can donate more than 2,300 dollars, it would be hard for any one donation to create some kind of bias. Plus this way he can encourage people to donate directly to him instead of uncontrollable 3rd party groups. Which kinda raises him to a higher level above McCain when it comes to a clean campaign. When McCain accepts the government's public financing, his supporters will have no choice but to donate to 3rd party smear groups.(Which sounds like something McCain probably wants)
- asskicker32, on 06/20/2008, -5/+10Taken from another thread
JanTikJanTik
23 hr 4 min ago
Actually, Obama is not going back on his word.
He stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Since then, he has said that he would only agree to such a deal if McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups. (see http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Opts_Out_of_Public_ ... for full details.) - beesaretasty, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3He agreed to use public financing if his opponent agreed to. It reached a point where McCain was already out of the public financing loop (remember his broken pledge in the primaries btw). McCain only agreed to use public financing for the general after Obama announced that he was going to use private financing.
As a side note, I think it would be better if they all used public financing from the beginning. It shouldn't take a half billion dollars to become the President of the United States of America. I agree with Obama in that the system is broken but I think his decision was at least equally guided by the knowledge that there is no way in hell McCain will raise as much money as he will by the end. - kingofinternet, on 06/20/2008, -6/+8it's a streetfight, looks like he grew some balls after fighting off clinton.
i have a feeling mccain will look very old and irrelevant next to obama. - Mewchu11, on 06/20/2008, -5/+13buried as republican scaremongering
- dagnabbit, on 06/20/2008, -5/+9Good. Now I think I'll go donate again.
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -5/+1No don't. Just wait 'til he becomes president and you'll donate with your increase in taxes.
- dagnabbit, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Not me - I make less than 250,000 per year.
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -5/+1No don't. Just wait 'til he becomes president and you'll donate with your increase in taxes.
- dildoolielly, on 06/21/2008, -3/+7I'm confused, which "scandal" is this?
Is this the Abramoff bribery scandal or Tom DeLay's money laundering scandal?
It could be the Cunningham bribery scandal...
Or is it the illegal wiretapping scandal?
The GOP pedophilia coverup?
The 9 billion missing in Iraq scandal?
Or is it the Vermont vote tampering scandal?
The Kentucky hiring scandal?
Or the Ohio embezzeling state funds scandal?
No, wait, Ohio is another vote tampering scandal... or is that Florida?
If this is about the CIA, it could be the intel fixing scandal.
Although it could be the attempted murder of a CIA agent to get back at her husband scandal.
How about the four years worth of e-mails missing from Rove scandal?
Maybe the Rick Renzi Land grab scandal.
No, wait, I got it, our President's weekly "spiritual" adviser getting caught svcking off a male prostitute while high on Meth scandal?
But it could be an entirely new scandal...
Can I get some help here?- OffPiste, on 06/21/2008, -4/+2Wow! Yikes. You truly are incapable of critical thinking.
- reed311, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1This has nothing to do with anyone else. Bringing up other scandals is no more of a defense than a thief bringing up other thieves in court to justify his crime of stealing.
- samthurston, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2except obama isn't stealing anything. He's just following the rules McCain helped write.
- MrRobotoSki, on 06/21/2008, -4/+6Just another corporate shill. All politicians play the game. Don't be surprised when he starts breaking major promises after he wins the election (that is if Bush doesn't help Mccain steal it). They worship money and power, not what some poor bastard in Ohio or Florida wants. Lies, lies and ,more lies.
- dinot, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1That's funny, because he's getting most of his money from "some poor bastard"(s) from every state, not corporations.
- OffPiste, on 06/21/2008, -5/+4This guy is bought and paid for by the mortgage industry. He could truly care less about us little people.
- sugarazor, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Source?
- Dzonatas, on 06/21/2008, -4/+3Obama chose freedom -- instead of being limited by broken laws of the public election financing. Now whiners are trying to bully everybody that support Obama. To complain about the decision is the most stupidest chunk of smegma crap I've heard from the neocon propaganda.
- SilverStandard, on 06/21/2008, -3/+8Obama voted for Real ID, the Patriot Act, and continued funding for the war. He's not going to bring change.
- jontalisman, on 06/21/2008, -3/+5Not to mention he voted to give retroactive immunity to the telecoms which supports Bush's efforts to spy on everybody.
- sKiLLa182, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1McCain will? He's part of the same effing party, ffs. Obama will bring change simply for the reason he is not a Republican. Essentially, Americans have two choices. The Republican candidate is obviously not going to change much of the policy of the current Republican administration. You can't win the change argument when the only alternative is someone who will certainly not change.
- SickMonkey, on 06/21/2008, -4/+2But he is using public financing, one $20 donation at a time and no money from PACS or lobbyists.
- db0255, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2The fact of the matter is, if you take public money it's taking tax money from people who probably wouldn't vote for him anyway. So why not just take it from supporters? It's not like the source is monumentally different. This AP writer is a piece of *****, in my opinion.
- sugarazor, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3Here's a small list of flip-flops from John McCain. But since it's a Republican, he just "saw the light" rather than "broke his word," right? Keep this in mind, I shamelessly lifted this from an article that's over a year old, so that doesn't even include the flip-flops of the last month:
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.) McCain also delivered the commencement speech at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006.
* McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts twice and now wants to make them permanent.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade. - Parisjune, on 06/21/2008, -4/+4Ron Paul 2008!
Thirty-years of flip-flop free support for the Constitution.- sugarazor, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1For Chrissake's, he dropped out. Let it go.
- Puisapres, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2There is a GREAT column by David Brooks that was written about this issue, and it's #1 at the nytimes.com website as we speak. He probably gives the best explanation as to why people are so upset by Obama's move. (And before I get buried twenty times over, Brooks states that he is overall "ambivalent" about the issue:)
"Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
"But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
"And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks ... - TheUnionBlood, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1So. . .Obama makes one "flip-flop" in which he exchanges one position for an arguably better position and the MSM attacks him, but McCain makes ten flip flops in two weeks and gets barely any coverage from the MSM? So much for "liberal bias".
- tock, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Let me make clear that I have little respect for McCain. But are you people for real? The main reason politics in this country are such a mess is because of the way campaign finance laws are set up. Hence the phrase: "American Democracy, the best government money can buy." Corporate and special interest money have broken the system. Its all well and good that Obama's campaign has got deep pockets and even better if they are able to raise all these funds from small donor contributions. But that still leaves every other member of Congress who can't raise the necessary funds this way up for sale to the highest bidder. For any of us who sincerely want real change in this country it starts and ends with campaign finance reform. Despite his many political shortcomings it is to his credit that John McCain was at one time a huge proponent of this type of reform. One of the main reasons I found an Obama candidacy hopeful was because of his previous stance on this issue. Public funding of elections and spending caps are the best solution. You can't seriously believe that the candidate with the most money is the one that deserves to win? If you do, then I would suggest that you currently have the government and administration that you deserve. Even more to the point, how is Obama changing his mind on this issue any different than Hillary changing her stance on counting the unseated Michigan delegates? Despite the FACT that it was not the right thing to do, it was politically expedient so she did it. In the same way Obama has made an eminently pragmatic decision given the size of his war chest. But the reason he attracted me initially was because I am an idealist and I wanted to see real change in Washington. Which has been the foundation of his platform. This is the first major signal from his campaign that, sadly, it will be politics as usual. I know many of us are desperate to believe but don't kid yourselves. Support Obama but don't give him the same blank check that the Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) have given W for the past 8 years. As his supporters we should be MORE responsible for holding him accountable than the opposition, not less. Better we send that message now in my opinion,
- jontalisman, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Excellent statement. However, I would say this is not the first time Obama has shown that he will be business as usual. Nor is it the first time where he has shown his willingness to ignore his supposed principles for political expediency.
- jontalisman, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Excellent statement. However, I would say this is not the first time Obama has shown that he will be business as usual. Nor is it the first time where he has shown his willingness to ignore his supposed principles for political expediency.
- Robjayne, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2This debate is totally irrelavent. Having to choose between these two is like is like saying gonnoreah is better than syphilis. I,d rather have niether. Lets debate which one is syphilis.
- ethornquist, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1So he's paying his own way? Good. That's an American value.
Mooching off the state (a la $3 / action groups) is not.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
