Obama's Public Financing Quandary Really Isn't One

Why would Barack Obama break what John McCain considers an iron-clad promise to participate in the public financing system?

First, Obama disputes the the premise that he promised to take public money. But this questionnaire makes it clear that Obama promised to participate and, on top of that, would "aggressively" pursue the Republican nominee to make sure he did as well. (His campaign claims that the pledge is no longer operative.)

Now -- to the question at hand.

For one thing, the Republican National Committee will have more money than the DNC. Sources close to the RNC say that the general election budget has been set at about $150 million. Why would Obama voluntarily amputate a few toes when the race hits the fall turn?

Obama has built the most impressive fundraising contraption in the history of presidential politics by leveraging technological advancements, harnessing the power of his own brand and exploiting the relative wealth and youth of his supporters. To borrow a phrase from Thomas Kuhn, he has shifted the paradigm for how we conceive of campaign financing.

Last night, echoing comments he has made before, he said:

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

In point of fact, Obama could opt out of the system and easily raise $150m from donors contributing no more than $150 a piece. There's been talk that he might cap donations, but I am told by a senior campaign official that Obama hasn't considered that idea.

In any event, the impetus would be on McCain to explain why a million people contributing $150 amounts to something other that public financing.

So -- Obama will go back on his word.

Will be face political consequences? Probably not. Campaign finance is not, and has rarely, if ever, been a non-transient voting issue. Rarely do these sorts of disputes escape the elite bubble and drop down.

And if they do, McCain's argument will be technical -- you broke a promise; Obama's will be operational -- I am participating in a public financing system, one that is inherently more democratic than yours and inherently more healthy for democracy.

Comments

You hit it in the second-to-last paragraph. This election will be about Iraq and the economy. Toss in health care and the direction of the country. The number of voters who see no differences on those issues, but are passionate about public financing, is vanishingly small.

Posted by Deborah | April 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Once again ambinder makes a great case for obama breaking his word and backing out of public financing. No not really. It's a pretty lousy case.

"Why would Obama voluntarily amputate a few toes when the race hits the fall turn?"

Because that is what he said he would do? Is that a good reason? And seeing as how several groups endorsed obama specifically because he said he would take public financing and several other groups endorsed him based largely on obama saying he would take public financing. To you, does that sound like a good reason for obama not to break his word and to take public financing like he said he would? [Of course only if mccain would]

Posted by hadenough | April 9, 2008 12:17 PM

If both candidates were really democratic, they would remove the barriers from the local level up to the national level that makes it virtually impossible for new parties to be formed, and allow candidates not sponsored by either of the major parties to get on the ballot with a minimum of hurdles and then compete on a level playing field with the sponsored candidate from the two major parties.

The public campaign financing system is part and parcel of this system that keeps the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties in power.

Hence, it is not a bad thing if the system died a slow death by candidates refusing money from it.

Posted by D | April 9, 2008 12:17 PM

So I guess it's a question of whether voters think a President's word is important. I do and I hope many others do. I fear that most commenters here don't think it important that Obama is going back on his word. Many will try to argue that he never pledged to work with McCain on this at all. That argument doesn't deserve a response.

If Obama won't keep his word on this then I wonder if he will not honor other pledges. It's unimportant to many, but it's important to me, adn I would urge any voters here to take this into account. I will remind any person I know who is interested in this election about Obama's pledge -- even if it won't make one damn bit of difference it is the right thing to do.

Obama is flat wrong here and to defend him by saying it's okay because he won't pay a political price shows a complete lack of integrity.

Posted by sbj | April 9, 2008 12:18 PM

As a Dean '04 supporter who voted along with the vast majority of Dean supporters to bust the caps during the primaries, I think you're comment in the last paragraph is precisely correct.

The Obama (and Dean before him) fundraising model is ,in fact, "inherently more democratic than [congressional attempts at public financing] and inherently more healthy for democracy."

Posted by Vermonter | April 9, 2008 12:20 PM

McCain is violating campaign finance law as we speak, so he is not going to be in holier-than-thou position relative to Obama.

Posted by eddie in ny | April 9, 2008 12:22 PM

The reality of the situation is that he's changed his opinion. When most of us change our opinion, we hopefully change actions that were dependent upon those previous opinions. Now its probably not politically smart to come out and say "I changed my mind", although he could say something to effect of "I underestimated the capacity of the American people to get involved, this is true pubic financing, etc". And I think he's on morally solid ground. Yes, he's probably going back on a previously stated intention, but there's a pretty good reason for it. I do think he should add some further restrictions to ensure its analogous to public financing, but I think Marc's right in that it won't matter politically.

Posted by Jay | April 9, 2008 12:28 PM

Actually, the reality of the situation is that Obama said he would accept public financing IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE MET. I.e., he could make a deal with the Republican nominee that would ensure he wasn't going to get crushed by unlimited soft money like Kerry did with the Swift Boat stuff.

But of course Ambinder seems to not want to discuss that part.

Because Ambinder is a Hillary shill who is less interested in the facts than in tearing Obama down.

Posted by Bubblegoose | April 9, 2008 12:32 PM

I really hope McCain attempts to attack Obama on public financing, because I would love to hear McCain explain why it is that he rails against the government wasting away our money but then turned around and used our money as collateral for a loan.

Also, where is McCain's money coming from if not from PACs and Lobbyists?

Of course, in fairness, a majority of McCain's money is clearly coming from nobody, which explains his fundraining numbers.

Posted by Kelly M. | April 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Obama should simply say, "With all my small donors, I don't need to take the taxpayer's money."

Let John McCain insist that Obama take a government handout.

Posted by RKA | April 9, 2008 12:37 PM

I think McCain will try to make this a huge deal breaker; but the fact that Obama's campaign is fundraising at a grass roots level and that the McCain campaign took a loan and gamed the public financing system themseleves illustrates how they don't really have a leg to stand on in this issue IMO.

Posted by Rhoda | April 9, 2008 12:39 PM

Accepting public funding would be an absolute disaster for any Democrat- because the Republicans have huge structural advantages in fielding "swift boat type" 527s. If Obama or Clinton accepts public financing, they could easily find themselves outspent by 4 to 1 in the general election when 527s are included.

Strictly speaking, I think Obama has wiggle room on this pledge- if he defines (as I would) a publicly financed campaign as including "no 527s". If McCain won't agree to that (and he won't) then Obama should not be bound to take public financing.

Posted by Anne E | April 9, 2008 12:42 PM

There is an easy fix here for Obama.
He stated in the pledge that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee.
All he has to do is stipulate a condition to which John McCain will not agree.
McCain refuses & Obama is off the hook.
Am I wrong?

Posted by John B. | April 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Obama should simply say, "With all my small donors, I don't need to take the taxpayer's money."

Let John McCain insist that Obama take a government handout.

Heh, that's an excellent way of putting it.

Accepting public funding would be an absolute disaster for any Democrat- because the Republicans have huge structural advantages in fielding "swift boat type" 527s.

Another valid point. (Not to mention conservative talk radio as well.)

Posted by DaveWoo | April 9, 2008 12:53 PM

Why Obama shouldn’t Obama take public financing? Three numbers.
527's

McCain went back on his word on public financing. He was for public financing until he realized he loaned his campaign money illegally. Then he was against it because he tried to opt out of it in Feb 08. Now that he sees that Obama is a juggernaut and McCain is for it again

Posted by Ann | April 9, 2008 12:55 PM

No just the 527s, but the right-wing echo chamber. In order to fight the free smears from Faux, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., you need a lot of money.

Nonetheless, I'm conflicted about this. I believe in public financing. But if the other side is going to wink and nod, and use its 527s and media shills, it might be better not to use it.

Posted by paleo | April 9, 2008 1:06 PM

Putting the legality of his actions in the primary aside, how is he going to explain not using public financing in the primary? Does anyone know his explanation for this?

Posted by Jay | April 9, 2008 1:11 PM

As more and more information comes out about Senator Obama's links to various people and organizations that are arguably a danger to American security, I think it's time to ask some questions – and it's time the Senator provide some answers. Why does Senator Obama surround himself with sworn enemies of the state, from William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member, to Jeremiah Wright, to others who have collaborated with Saddam Hussein (no, this is not conspiracy theory. Read on). Why does he choose such people? And how does that jibe with his wife's lack of pride in the USA? More important – what does it tell us about his judgment – that "judgment" he touts as his greatest quality, the reason he should be given the office of the presidency – and entrusted not just with America's safety and security, but with its integrity and standing in the world?
By Abigail R. Esman
World Defense Review columnist

Posted by Thomas Richards | April 9, 2008 1:13 PM

Clearly he checked "yes" on the questionnaire provided. But did you read the explanation? He states clearly he will "aggressively pursue" public financing. This means a negotiation... not a blanket acceptance.

Posted by RDH | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Ah, the patriotic correctness corner is heard from.

"Enemies of the state"? That says everything you need to know about Ms. Esman.

Posted by paleo | April 9, 2008 1:17 PM

Actually campaign finance reform is my main issues and Obama doesn't lose my support by saying "no" to what he had initially agreed. Your point is dead on, he is being more democratic and raising money from so many of us that he meets the spirit and intent of public financing.

Also, McCain is the one that has had campaign finance reform as a signature issues, but Obama is actually doing more on this issue in how he runs his campaign. I would have voted for McCain because of his history on this issue, but given Obama's focus and ability to actually do more that talk about it, he gets my vote.

And it is, to a large degree, because of finance reform that he gets it. He is changing the power composition and distribution of influence in Washington DC by running this kind of campaign.

Posted by Mike in Sac | April 9, 2008 1:19 PM

McCain has violated U.S. fiancing laws. Why such little talk of that?

McCain said he would us public financing as a way to get automatic ballot access and secure loans to keep his campaign going. He now says he won't opt into the matching funds.

This is more than a promise or whatever, he flat-out broke the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/mccain.finance/

Posted by Joey | April 9, 2008 1:23 PM

IMO a shift from taxpayer-financed public financing to small-donor-financed amounts to the same (actually a better) fulfillment of the spirit of public financing.

Obama should just say he's changed his mind based on the huge change his campaign has brought to presidential politics (and the other points mentioned above by others--like McCain's flip flopping, the 527 issue etc.).

Keep on keeping on, Sen. Obama, we millions of small donors have your back!

Posted by Ruth | April 9, 2008 1:26 PM

As multiple people above pointed out, McCain has already lost all credibility by pissing on his own law with the loan secured by a "promise" of getting public financing that wasn't REALLY collateral.

The GOP is famous for ignoring history, like telling us to ignore the lies used to start the war in Iraq and just concentrate on the future, but McCain has to answer for his actions on this one. Sorry. No "do overs".

Posted by LFC | April 9, 2008 1:29 PM

"With all my small donors, I don't need to take the taxpayer's money."

What a laugh! All of this claptrap about Obama taking money only from small donors on the internet is BS. Obama spent the whole day yesterday attending $2300 a head fundraisers in San Fran - attended mostly by millionaires:

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

Also, this bit of nonsense needs to be refuted:

"Obama said he would accept public financing IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE MET. I.e., he could make a deal with the Republican nominee that would ensure he wasn't going to get crushed by unlimited soft money."

This is a lie. Here's Obama's pledge and it has nothing to say about soft money:

"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. ... 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."

There's nothing in there about 527s and soft money. Let's at least keep the discussion honest.

Obama himself says "I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns." Now, supporters here are claiming, I guess, that he is no longer such an advocate. If so, one wonders why he agreed that "If elected President, [he] would support and work to enact legislation creating a voluntary public
financing system for congressional candidates."

Obama made his pledge as a response to other candidates who had said they would forgo public financing so that they could pursue raising unlimited funds for the general. This is exactly what Obama now intends to do.

Again, this is not a question of whether he will pay a political price. This, at least to me, is a simple matter of whether I can trust a man who does not keep his word. I hope others see it that way, too.

Posted by sbj | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM

Thomas Richards:

You post is odd to say the least. Painting Obama as an associate of people that threaten this country is just ridiculous. Maybe you should do more than just suck up the swill or right media and use your own brain to analytically look at issues.

I find it interesting that Fox and other media like them are not even allowed to air in Great Britain as they are not deemed news, but instead propaganda.

For you and those others who only listen to people painting fearful pictures and trying to scare you. It should not be so. Come to understand the power of hope. Heck, give audacity a chance and look beyond all the manipulation of the masses.

These types of posts insult you and all of us as they think we cannot use our own intellect and see what is best for this country. Wake up if this has been you and rise above the semi-aware state that this fearmongering tries to perpetuate.

Posted by Mike in Sac | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM

I am at loss with the definition of "public financing". Can anybody explain to me how that is more "public" than the one Obama is getting from small donors?

thanks.

Posted by gobo | April 9, 2008 1:36 PM

If Obama does take public financing, wouldn't the DNC rake in a lot of the money that would've gone to him, and maybe achieve parity with the RNC?

Posted by neil | April 9, 2008 1:42 PM

As one of the 1.3 million donors, I've already written my email..

HELL NO

to public financing of this campaign.

I believe I'm part of the public financing.

And, McCain, with his creative loans, has no leg to stand on in this situation.

Posted by rikyrah | April 9, 2008 1:43 PM

gobo,

Public financing means that a candidate agrees to spend only so much money, and in return receives matching funds from the treasury.

Posted by paleo | April 9, 2008 1:47 PM

Barack Obama's campaign has been one that has redefined the political landscape. He has a chance to MORE ACURATELY define public financing.

Govermental financing is not public funding, even communist countries do that. Public financing is when the general public matches their enthusiasm for a SPECIFIC candidate with monetary support.

Taking a staunch Republican voter's tax dollars and indiscriminately using it to finance a Democrat's campaign is less democratic and the same is true, vice versa.

Obama's version of Public Financing is one that is in tune with the democratic will whilst responsible to avoid lobbyists and PACs buying influencing special policy against the general good.

Grassroots funding is the most perfect public financing in any democracy and Barack should not betray the will of the voters to avoid McCain's insincere, undemocratic and hypocritical reproach.

Posted by Sarah Jane Goldberg | April 9, 2008 2:03 PM

John McCain is a hack job warmonger.

Being held captive in Vietnam gives him ZERO qualifications to hold the presidency.

He was simply the best of the worst that the Republicans have to offer...

Dems better use every advantage they have over the Republicans because they were able to manipulate the vote in 2000 and 2004 with the last hack job warmongering president George W. Bush.

Posted by Elbram | April 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Change you can believe in = changing your beliefs when it's convenient.

What a uniter! Successfully melding totally contradictory statements and positions! Anyone else who posed as someone above politics, but conducted himself just like any other politician - playing to win regardless of yesterday's stands on principles - would be a hypocrite!

What in the world, other than "hope," makes you believe that the promises he's made to you on things you do still care about will be any more reliable, if and when he decides that they no longer serve his political ambitions?

Posted by CK MacLeod | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

The problem here is that Obama's integrity yet again remains unquestioned. He is the most dangerous kind of man: one that believes his own lies as he tells more and more of them. He is fairweather in his views and his friendships completely dependent on what benefits or harms his blind ambition. His scarcity and fear tactics have created division in American as unseen for many years. He is bad for America.

Posted by over obama | April 9, 2008 2:45 PM

The problem here is that Obama's integrity yet again remains unquestioned. He is the most dangerous kind of man: one that believes his own lies as he tells more and more of them. He is fairweather in his views and his friendships completely dependent on what benefits or harms his blind ambition. His scarcity and fear tactics have created division in American as unseen for many years. He is bad for America.

Posted by over obama | April 9, 2008 2:46 PM

"Over Obama", I think you confuse the maladies of the Clintons for Obama's.

All the thinks you used in an attempt to undermine Obama's integrity ring truest when used to describe the politically ruthless Clintons.

Posted by Sarah Jane Goldberg | April 9, 2008 2:57 PM

"Over Obama", I think you confuse the maladies of the Clintons for Obama's.

All the things you used in an attempt to undermine Obama's integrity ring truest when used to describe the politically ruthless Clintons.

Posted by Sarah Jane Goldberg | April 9, 2008 2:58 PM

It seems a silly point to keep bringing up. McCain's already blatantly violated public financing rules. Now he's asking that everyone make a new pact to abide by them. I see no reason to trust him to not blatantly break them again.

Posted by kildy | April 9, 2008 3:05 PM

If the Republican candidate cannot agree to a public financing truce, then each candidate should do what he or she thinks is right.

And whether or not it is spin, please explain to me how it would be "bad" for a candidate to refuse to spend tax dollars, while the other candidate insists on it.

Posted by Saska | April 9, 2008 3:12 PM

Obama is backing away from matching funds because it would hurt his chances of winning. He can outraise McCain. Don't overthink it. I agree however that the way Obama is raising money is in keeping with the intent of McCain-Feingold. The argument way back in 2002 was money was corrupting the political and legislative process. Obama has built a better mousetrap and wants to take advantage of it.

McCain really doesn't have a leg to stand on in this regard. He has used federal matching funds to borrow a couple million dollars in violation of the spirit of public financing. McCain then argues Obama is going back on his word. Let the irony ensue.

Campaign finance is an ephemeral issue and doesn't drive votes. The idea that going after Obama on this will work is unlikely. Find a different line of attack.

Posted by Ben | April 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Fox News isn't journalism, it is entertainment for the ill of mind.

McCain should sweep his side of the street before he goes and makes accusations.

Posted by jim | April 9, 2008 3:35 PM

He WILL get away with it, because the media will let him. The public may not care, but, then, I never thought the public would care about an esoteric, abstract campaign based on "new politics". Maybe they'll never find out, or maybe the inconsistency -- and broken promise -- won't mean anything to them. Or maybe it'll make them see him for what he is -- a typical politician looking out for his own interests.

I'm not a campaign finance expert, but I'd love for someone to explore whether Obama's online donations really would amount to public financing. To the extent Obama doesn't accept money from wealthy interests -- which he has studiously NOT agreed to do -- he won't be beholden to them. As for small donors, he WILL be accountable to them, but that's probably a good thing, unless his donors have something in common -- ethnicity, class, etc. -- that amounts to an interest bloc that expects something specific in return. If they demand action on a policy or program that is out of the mainstream, say, Obama would be the one to pay the price for either doing it, or not. That's his problem, not ours. It's hard to find a problem with that, but again, I'm not an analyst. It would be interesting to examine it further to see the true consequences.

Additionally, part of the merit of the public financing program is leveling the playing field for all candidates, and capping the total spending amount. Small donors or not, the '08 campaign is still awash with money, and we haven't yet examined what that means or whether that in itself is corrupting. The media is still the beneficiary of most of this money, I suspect, and we already know how they've corrupted the process over the years.

Much of Obama's success with fund-raising has been the result of his rock-star following. That will be hard to duplicate by someone less stellar.

As for the media, they should really hold Obama accountable on this issue. He IS going back on a promise. Does anyone doubt that if he were having difficulty raising money, he'd be arguing the opposite case, putting McCain on the spot for going back on his word? (He does high-dudgeon well.) This, by the way, is only one of many examples of Obama practicing the "old politics of the past," albeit quite skillfully. Instead of letting him off the hook, he should get the Hillary treatment -- use this example of hypocrisy to unveil all the other instances where he didn't live up to the rules he set. This, after all, is the basis of his campaign and goes to the very essence of his candidacy. How could you ignore it?

If Obama is going to get credit for being a new kind of politician, who preaches doing the right thing over the rote political thing, he should get the blame when he falls short of this standard. Call it the Spitzer rule, without the prostitutes.

Posted by Suzy | April 9, 2008 4:18 PM

Why should Senator Obama take public financing? He would be giving McCain a huge money advantage if he did that. The DNC won't be able to raise $150 million for Obama, unless the donors from the Obama campaign would donate to the DNC. But how would we know if all of that money went only to Obama? So I say, don't do it. Let McCain go out and try and raise the money after he works out his current problems with the FEC. This is double talk by McCain.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | April 9, 2008 4:37 PM

Both McCain and Obama were proponents of public financing when it looked advantageous to go that route. Both have had second thoughts. Frankly, I'd be more concerned if Obama weren't willing to change his mind on this since he's been so effective at grassroots fund-raising. The more thorny question is the extent to which Obama will be able to keep his fund-raising and accountability focused on the small donor when the big donors start lining up to buy influence.

Posted by Michael Sherer | April 9, 2008 4:57 PM

"In any event, the impetus would be on McCain to explain why a million people contributing $150 amounts to something other that public financing."

That's it. Right there! To hear Republicans wax poetic about forcing taxpayers to pay for something they don't agree with sounds right to me...hypocrites! What's next publicly financed abortion? Teaching of Evolution?

Posted by thebob.bob | April 9, 2008 5:20 PM

The speicifics who said what in the Obama/Mcain public financing debate aside- isn't the heart of the issue about taking money out of the equation? Meaning to have a balanced playing field, which in theory would allow for an intelligent debate over the issues between(among) the candidates- the exact opposite of a race to reach voters through a costly media campaign.
I recall Obama's grass roots support base being about a few million, this is hardly a significant portion of the population in a country of several hundred million. This is not the equivalent of public financing- it's a well ordered group with excellent funding. And I don't think this is a good model for an election in which all voices are heard equally and issues are debated thoroughly and thoughtfully. It is however an excellent way to win. What a shame.

Posted by Gatsby | April 9, 2008 6:48 PM

I most certainly do not agree that the negotiations posited by Obama's questionnaire response don't involve soft money. Quite the contrary; there's nothing else that COULD be referred to by "insuring that both campaigns stay within the public financing system". That can't possibly refer only to adhering to the hard-money spending limits, because the law leaves no choice in that matter. And neither is there is any choice about sticking with public financing once you accept it (unless you are willing to break the law as McCain is doing in the primary), so that's not a possible interpretation either.

In any case, McCain, who is blatantly breaking the law even as we speak, is in no position to bitch and the Obama campaign ought to point that out at every opportunity.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 9, 2008 9:20 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by jacksmith | April 9, 2008 11:24 PM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | April 9, 2008 11:34 PM

Obama is pulling a "Clinton"...no ifs, ands
or buts. What do you expect from a Democrat?

Posted by interferon | April 10, 2008 12:43 AM

Oh....and jacksmith is a jacko*f. I think
he is the designer of Hillary's current
wardrobe. He sounds a little fey to me.

Posted by interferon | April 10, 2008 12:49 AM

I have a problem with McCain accepting public financing. His primary sources of funding have been K-street. He is in debt to special interests and now the public should fund his campaign?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/30/ST2007123002933.html

--snip--
McCain's appearance at the Deer Valley event, arranged by J.P. Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee Jr., a top McCain fundraiser, put him in a room with the chief executives of companies such as General Electric, Xerox and Sony. It was, Lee said, "a chance for him to let them see him for who he is and possibly decide to support him." The effort paid off: J.P. Morgan executives have donated $56,250 to McCain's campaign, two-thirds of which came after his Utah appearance. And his visit there was quickly followed up by dozens of smaller private meetings with corporate executives in New York City arranged by leading Wall Street figures.
--snip--

Posted by mikeVA | April 10, 2008 11:54 AM

You fail to mention that McCain has already gamed the system himself. He does not have a leg to stand on re: this issue. What's he going to say? It's okay for me to be dishonest and game the system, but it is not okay for you?

Posted by Bubba | April 10, 2008 1:08 PM

Stealing liberally from National review:

"There's a Word for Obama's 'Parallel Public Financing System': Private.

Obama's public pledges meant nothing.

Obama had the audacity to announce his breaking of his public financing pledge before a $2,300 per head fundraising dinner.

By a "parallel public financing system," Obama means that he is getting a lot of money from private donors. If this is "public", then every other candidate who has ever run for office has used a "parallel public financing system" too.

Come on, Senator. Don't tell me words don't matter."

Posted by sbj | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM